Creationism

Baroness Rendell of Babergh: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether creationism is being taught in schools.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, pupils are encouraged to explore different views, theories and beliefs in many national curriculum subjects, including science and religious education. All state-funded schools, including those governed by funding agreements with the Secretary of State, such as academies and city technology colleges, are required to provide a broad and balanced curriculum to their pupils and to teach the core subjects of the national curriculum, including science.

Baroness Rendell of Babergh: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for her Answer. Would she agree that creationism and natural selection should not be taught as equally faith-based, but that the creationism of Genesis, albeit an ancient and beautiful tradition, should be taught as an allegory and evolution as science-based? Would she also agree that pupils should never be tested on the faith-based theory of creationism as part of the science syllabus?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, on the latter point, the science curriculum at key stage 4—that is, for 14 to 16 year-olds—is tested on evolution as part of science. In key stage 3 of the RE curriculum there is a unit—it is unit 9B, for those who might be interested—entitled "Where did the universe come from?" I am in the middle of Bill Bryson's expose of that subject at the moment. The unit considers the issues of science and religion and the perception of conflict between them. The overarching point is that within the national curriculum we are very clear about what we expect to be taught, but we have always allowed schools to teach beyond the national curriculum.

The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: My Lords, these Benches have a great deal of sympathy with the concerns expressed in the Question asked by the noble Baroness. Would the Government agree that the time is right to investigate the possibility of a nationally agreed RE syllabus along the lines of a certain recent ecumenical initiative?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, as the right reverend Prelate knows, some discussions are taking place. I know that he will be involved in further discussions with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State on the question of an RE syllabus. It may be worth saying to the right reverend Prelate that there are different views about that, not least from the SACREs in different localities, many of which feel it is appropriate to have a locally based curriculum.

Lord Taverne: My Lords, if the Government are to allow the teaching of creationism, will they also allow the teaching of pre-Copernican astronomy, that the earth is flat and that the sun goes round the earth?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the noble Lord should reflect on the basis on which a Secretary of State and a Government must act in determining what elements of faith should or should not be allowed in an education system. When the noble Lord reflects on that, he will recognise that our responsibility is to ensure that children receive a broad and balanced curriculum, are taught the national curriculum, are regularly inspected and that we ensure that children and young people get the opportunity to explore theories and beliefs.

Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, are the theories of Charles Darwin included in such teaching, notably on the origin of species and the survival of the fittest?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, as I have already indicated, within the science curriculum we ensure at key stages 3 and 4 that children and young people have the opportunity to explore the different theories of creation and evolution. I have also made it clear on which they are tested.

Lord Tanlaw: My Lords, I declare an interest as the chairman of the All-Party Astronomy and Space Environment Group. This Question has a very deep relevance. In America, there has been a complete mixture and muddle between religion and science. In the lovely prayer with which the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Sheffield opened today's proceedings, he made reference to the four corners of the earth. Most of us would agree that the earth is not flat, and that should not be taught as a literal scientific lesson. The same goes for Genesis I; it is astro-physically totally unsound to believe that the earth was formed before the stars. It is very dangerous that those thoughts can be transmitted to young people via the educational system, as they are in America.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am very impressed by the noble Lord's credentials in this area. The only school in which the issue was raised was written to, and discussions took place with the Chief Inspector of Schools, who was completely satisfied that the school was acting correctly in the presentation of the science curriculum. There are no other indications that at other schools it has even been raised as an issue.

Lord Peston: My Lords, does my noble friend accept that the Secretary of State does have some responsibility if nonsense is taught in our schools? Will she comment on my discovery that, in a school that is not a religious school, children as young as six are being taught that the world is full of evil due to the existence of Satan? When that was put to me by my grandchild, I said, "Well, that's rubbish". He said, "No, it's not—my teacher told me".

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the noble Lord makes an important point; namely, in the course of the education of all children, as noble Lords will know from their own experience, views are expressed by individual teachers. The difficulty and difference for a government is to ensure that children get the best possible curriculum, and, within that, that we do not censure, if I may describe it as such, what is a widely held belief for many people. It is important, as noble Lords have said, to make sure that within the science curriculum we are clear about what we are teaching. The only case raised has been investigated. We also need to be clear that we have a broad-based faith society and we should recognise and celebrate it.

Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, will the Minister kindly explain to the uninitiated what on earth creationism is?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I may not be the best person to do so, but I shall make an attempt. Essentially, creationism is based on the teachings of the Bible. It is based on the idea that the earth was created after the stars, by having a timeline that suggests, as I understand it, that the earth is only several thousand years old.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, given that the ideas of Darwin are generally regarded by many scientists as the greatest break-through in science in the past couple of hundred years, will the Minister assure the House that in those schools where creationism is taught the children are also exposed to the full science curriculum and that they understand the ideas of Darwin and evolution?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, as I believe I have indicated, there is only one school where this has been raised as an issue. The Chief Inspector of Schools was satisfied that within the curriculum the young people were indeed exposed at key stage 4 to the appropriate theories mentioned by the noble Baroness. Underneath your Lordships' questions are issues as to whether we should be concerned about this matter. Perhaps I may quote the Vardy Foundation, which is thinking of opening another school. It has said:
	"Other faiths will also be taught and students encouraged to come to their own personal decisions about what to believe and why".
	I think that noble Lords will agree that that is an appropriate statement.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am afraid that we are well over time.

Mr James Miller: Israeli Shooting Inquiry

Lord Waddington: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I should tell the House that James Miller was known to me, being the brother of my daughter-in-law.
	The Question was as follows:
	To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have obtained from the Government of Israel an acknowledgement of responsibility for the shooting of Mr James Miller, cameraman and director, by a soldier of the Israeli army on 2nd May.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the Israeli Government have acknowledged responsibility for Mr Miller's death, but the Israeli defence force's inquiry into the full circumstances of this tragic case is still under way. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary raised the case on 8th and 15th May with the Israeli Foreign Minister and is writing to Mr Shalom following the recent meeting with Mr Miller's family on 2nd June. We are pressing for a full and transparent Israeli military police investigation and a written apology.

Lord Waddington: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply. I also thank the Foreign Secretary for his courtesy in seeing the family. However, have not the Israeli Government failed to put in train the full and transparent investigation asked for by the British Government? Is not the so-called command inquiry likely to end in the kind of cover-up that has followed other shootings such as that of Ian Hook, the UN worker, in Jenin? Is it not already plain that the tale originally told—that James was shot in the back having been caught in cross-fire—was completely false? The bullet entered the front of his neck. The film of another camera crew shows that the firing was coming from Israeli troops alone, and James was killed when he and his companions were wearing helmets with "TV" on them and carrying white flags and shouting that they were British journalists. When the British Government are giving all possible support to the Israeli Government in their fight against terrorism, are they not entitled to expect in return a proper investigation to establish responsibility for this crime and redress for the family of a British citizen unlawfully killed?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord's last point. We are pressing for a full and transparent inquiry, as I hope I made clear in my original Answer. I thank the noble Lord for his remark about the Foreign Secretary. Obviously, we need to wait for the findings of the Israeli defence force inquiry when it publishes its report into the full circumstances surrounding what I am sure all noble Lords will acknowledge is a desperately sad case. But it is very difficult to establish exactly what happened. The noble Lord referred to some conflicting reports about the exact circumstances. This incident took place late at night. It is important that we do everything we can to establish the full circumstances. I know that my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary will be writing to James Miller's widow within the next couple of days.

Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, will the Minister underline to the Israeli authorities that there is widespread support for the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, in many parts of this House and outside it? Does she agree that, not only in the case of Ian Hook but also in that of Tom Hurndall, internal inquiries were perceived to be partial and were not seen as dispassionate or objective? Great cynicism was expressed subsequently about their findings. Does the Minister agree that the transparency she mentioned and the independence of such an inquiry in investigating the case of James Miller are paramount?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I shall ensure that these exchanges are drawn to the attention of the Israeli authorities. The noble Lord refers to two other tragic cases. We are very concerned about civilian casualties resulting from Israeli operations. By "civilian" I mean both civilians who are indigenous to the area and those who go in to investigate what is happening. We urge the Israelis to do everything they can to ensure that civilian casualties are avoided and that their actions always fall within international law. Given the number of recent incidents, to which the noble Lord, Lord Alton, referred, we have asked, through Mr Shalom, to establish whether anything can be done about revising the rules of engagement for the Israeli defence forces so that they can do their best to avoid these tragic and terrible incidents.

Lord Redesdale: My Lords, what timescale do the Government believe will be involved for the internal inquiry to come to its conclusion? Most of the work already appears to have been done, including a comprehensive autopsy. Are the Government raising the very real concerns about indiscipline inside the Israeli defence force, which led to so many of these incidents?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am not able to give a timescale. It is important, when trying to establish exactly what happened in such an incident, that any inquiries are exhaustive. As we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, versions of what happened on that terrible night have already changed during the course of some of the inquiries so far. It is important to ensure that that is properly dealt with. As to what the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, referred to as indiscipline, I hope that I made clear that we have expressed our concern to the Israeli Government about the rules of engagement. The noble Lord will understand what I mean when I say that the rules of engagement are a matter of concern to Her Majesty's Government.

Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, we join others in extending our sympathies to James Miller's family and relations following his tragic death. What further advice and recommendations will Her Majesty's Government give to journalists, including cameramen, to help to protect their safety when working in areas of conflict?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am sure that all noble Lords wish to send their sympathy to James Miller's widow and two young children. We advise that everyone going into the area looks very carefully indeed at the travel advice that the Foreign Office issues. I understand that although some individuals know that the travel advice is unequivocal in advising against travel to the West Bank and Gaza, they none the less feel that they have a very strong reason to go. A number of peace workers and journalists are there. We advise them, as the travel advice states, that if they feel they really must be there, they must take every possible precaution against getting into situations in which there may be cross-fire or flash points of violent incidents. As we know, there have been several fatal attacks. All of that is made very clear in the Foreign Office travel advice.

Royal Mail: Transport Policy

Lord Bradshaw: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they support the decision of the Post Office to remove the carriage of mail from the railways.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, Royal Mail planned under its transport review to continue to use rail as part of its integrated transport network. However, two years of negotiation with English, Welsh and Scottish Railway have stalled on cost grounds. Royal Mail's board has decided therefore to drop plans to include rail in its new network. The Government regret that loss of business for rail freight but stand by their policy of allowing Royal Mail freedom to operate commercially.

Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. I seek an assurance from him that the Government will examine the basis of the costing that the railway and Post Office have adopted. Is a full cost associated with the rail mode and has the road mode been assessed on a marginal cost basis, which, among other things, does not take into account the fact that the heaviest lorries do not pay a proper contribution to the maintenance of the highway?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, that commercial decision will be taken by Royal Mail; that is its decision. The costing basis that it uses is for it to decide. I should have thought that in both cases marginal costing was very important for those decisions.

Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I declare an interest as chairman of the Rail Freight Group. First, my noble friend said in his Answer to the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, that Royal Mail's decision to use road instead of rail was taken on cost grounds. Is he aware that there are three other rail freight operators who could quote for that work, and does he know whether they have been asked to do so? When I discussed this with Royal Mail some time ago, the answer was that it had not.
	My second point relates to Royal Mail's facilities at terminals and in trains, which are probably used for only eight hours a day. Royal Mail could surely save an enormous amount of money if it allowed third-party operators, such as DHL, Securicor and others, who are very keen to use rail freight, to use those expensive facilities as well.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, again, whether Royal Mail approaches other operators is entirely a commercial decision for it. If the other operators were any good, however, I should expect that they would have seized the opportunity to approach Royal Mail and make it an offer.

The Lord Bishop of Hereford: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it will be very environmentally damaging to make the proposed change of mode? The Post Office spokesman, when challenged about the environmental implications of its policy, was wholly unconvincing. It is totally unacceptable, and quite contrary to the Government's policy of encouraging transfer from road to rail, to allow that to go ahead. The Minister's answer that it is simply a matter of commercial judgment must be challenged by a Government who are serious about the environment.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the right position is to leave that as a commercial decision. However, the road transport review, which has taken place, will result in environmental improvements; they will be very substantial indeed. They will not be as large as they could have been if that transport had been kept on rail, Nevertheless, because of efficiency, there will be very big environmental improvements.

Lord Clarke of Hampstead: My Lords—

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: My Lords—

Noble Lords: This side!

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: My Lords, does not the approach of Royal Mail involve the kind of gesture towards the declared policy of the Deputy Prime Minister—of moving traffic from road to rail—with which he himself has been identified in recent days? How can any government which made promises some six years ago to reduce the growth of road traffic stand at the Dispatch Box and say, "We are leaving it all to the market"?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, it has never been part of the Government's policy to require that commercial activities should take place on one kind of transport or another. The aim is to make it attractive for people to do so through grants and other means. However, the policy is not to direct companies to do something but to leave it to them to make their decision on the best possible information.

Lord Ezra: My Lords, is the situation not complicated by the fact that Royal Mail is VAT exempt and therefore cannot reclaim VAT on transport by rail? However, by using its own road transport, it does not incur VAT. That obviously gives an advantage of at least 17.5 per cent in favour of road transport.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I am not able to say what the exact position is because that affects the position with regard to the particular commercial decision. Again, one must say that it is for the parties involved to make their decision on the best basis. Changing the derogation, which I believe applies in this respect to the Post Office, or changing the VAT arrangement for rail transport are rather big decisions to take simply in relation to this issue.

Lord Clarke of Hampstead: My Lords, does my noble friend recall the time when he steered the Postal Services Act 2000 through this House? Was there any reference to the need for the Post Office to have regard to the environment? I cannot recall the Post Office ever being given that latitude. Could he also say whether the accounting that led to this situation of road versus rail is the same accounting that Postcomm applied when applying its charges for downstream access into the Royal Mail service, which, on recent figures, shows that the Post Office will be subsidising its competitors?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the two accounting systems are rather different in terms of what they are trying to achieve. In this particular context, again it is for the Post Office to decide what is the best kind of costing basis to use. The House should bear in mind that in the past it has been constant government intervention in decisions taken on a commercial basis by the Post Office which has done it so much harm. Now we have given it the responsibility to make these decisions on a commercial basis, we should stand behind it and let it get on with the job.

Mr Putin: United Kingdom Visit

Lord Judd: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What are the principal issues for their discussions with President Putin during his visit to the United Kingdom.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, President Putin's principal substantive discussions will be with the Prime Minister. As the visit is still two weeks away, it is impossible to say exactly which areas will be covered. But we expect they will discuss a range of international issues, including Iraq, the Middle East, proliferation and terrorism. The visit will also include a United Kingdom/Russian energy summit and a visit to Edinburgh.

Lord Judd: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply; perhaps she will accept that many of us wish the visit all possible success. Clearly, we want to see Russia as a full partner in responding to the challenges in the century ahead.
	Does my noble friend agree that in the context of the discussions on terrorism it will be important to make plain to the Russian Government that by the way in which they are responding to terrorism in the Chechen republic—and undoubtedly there is terrorism there—they are in fact recruiting for the extremists? The climate of impunity in which the Russian army operates, the failure to bring to justice those responsible in the army for alleged atrocities, and the human rights abuses are all grist to the mill of the extremists. If we are to win the battle of hearts and minds against terrorism, what is happening in Chechnya has a significance way beyond that republic itself. Will my noble friend assure us that these issues will be fully discussed with the Russian Government?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I hope they will. I am sure my noble friend Lord Judd will understand that I am in no position to commit my right honourable friend the Prime Minister to the exact nature of the discussion that will take place. As I was careful to say, the fact is that two weeks is a long time in international relations. I am sure that there will be many issues on a very crowded agenda, but I agree strongly with my noble friend that we all want the visit to be a success. Russia is not only a key ally but also a key player on the international scene. It was a member of the quartet that brought forward the road map which we wish to see flourish in the Middle East.
	I am sure that any discussion around terrorism must at some point touch upon the issues raised by my noble friend. As he will know, the EU, while acknowledging that some were a little cynical about the recent referendum, cautiously welcomed its result in Chechnya and stressed that the Russians must now honour their commitments to improve the situation on the ground.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it would be a good idea if the Prime Minister took the opportunity of his next meeting with Mr Putin to clear up the alarming misunderstanding which apparently arose at the G8 summit? The Prime Minister thought President Putin had agreed to suspend delivery of nuclear fuel to Iran. President Putin declared afterwards that he had said no such thing. Will the Government discuss with President Putin the IAEA's confidential report on Iran's ability to produce nuclear weapons and any actions it may recommend at its board of governors' meeting on June 15th?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, as I indicated in my opening Answer, I am sure that the discussions will range around a number of international issues, including Iraq and proliferation.

Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, can the Minister confirm, despite the visit still being two weeks away, that in the course of their talks the Prime Minister and President Putin will discuss not only the threat in common they have from international terrorism, but also specifically Islamic fundamentalist terrorism, which seeks to distort the true meaning and teaching of the Islamic faith? Will they discuss how best our two countries can co-operate to tackle that threat?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am sure the issues around terrorism are ones that are bound to be discussed by my right honourable friend and Mr Putin. There are serious concerns about the clear links between some extremist groups operating in Chechnya and Al'Qaeda. Those groups have already been mentioned in your Lordships' House. I am sure that the wider reach of those operating in Chechnya and their linkages to other terrorist organisations will also be a matter of mutual concern.

Lord Blaker: My Lords, Russia clearly has influence with Iran. Would it not be useful if Mr Putin were to endeavour to persuade the Iranians not to proceed further with the development of nuclear weapons—the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury—but also to discourage the Iranians from supporting the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq, which was based in Tehran but is now based in Iraq and which is acting as a political party and threatening to boycott the interim government?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, as I said in my very brief answer to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, the fact is that if my right honourable friend will be discussing Iraq and matters of non-proliferation, many of these tangential issues may well be raised. My difficulty arises because your Lordships are urging me to assure them that certain matters will be discussed. I am afraid that it is not in my gift to be able to say that I am absolutely certain that these specific points raised by your Lordships will indeed be matters of detailed discussion. I can tell your Lordships that they are all aiming in the right direction when they say that matters concerning Iraq and matters concerning the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction are bound to be on the agenda.

Lord Russell-Johnston: My Lords, does the noble Baroness realise that the remarks by the Prime Minister appearing to give approbation to the referendum in Chechnya were deeply offensive to human rights workers? The referendum was conducted in circumstances in which no fair outcome could be assured. I hope that that will be recognised in the discussions.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I do understand, and I hope I made clear in my answer to the supplementary question from my noble friend Lord Judd that a number of people were unconvinced by the very high turnout in the Chechnyan referendum—some 80 per cent—and the massive majority for the "Yes" vote at some 96 per cent. Those are truly remarkable figures. Although there are some who believe that the referendum was manipulated, the Prime Minister is not alone in having given it a cautious welcome. The majority of European Union countries welcomed the result. They did so very cautiously. In so doing they stressed to the Russian Government that we now expect them to honour their commitments on the ground. That includes moving towards a presidential election in six months' time and parliamentary elections three months after that.

Iraq: Post-conflict Deployment of UK Armed Forces

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How many Armed Forces personnel are planned to remain in post-conflict Iraq and over what period.

Lord Bach: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence has today published in another place a Written Statement which sets out in some detail our progress in tailoring the UK presence in Iraq to suit the emerging strategic environment. I have today answered a Written Question in this House to the same effect.
	We shall continue to review our force levels to ensure that we maintain an appropriate presence for as long as necessary. The noble Lord will appreciate that at this early stage there is no way of telling accurately how long that might be.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Answer. Inevitably, the detail is contained in places other than this Chamber. Therefore, it is a little difficult to ask an immediate supplementary question, but can the noble Lord add anything on the probabilities and the time dimension? Can he further indicate what role is envisaged for the Iraqi Army in post-conflict Iraq?

Lord Bach: My Lords, I can tell the noble Lord that we have so far brought home more than 25,000 UK servicemen and women, following the end of decisive combat operations in Iraq. They have been taking some well-earned leave, following which they will be available for further taskings. So we currently retain about 17,000 UK servicemen and women deployed in the Gulf region, in a continuing effort to fulfil our responsibilities towards the Iraqi people. We shall continue to withdraw assets and personnel from the region where possible; but, equally, we shall maintain an appropriate military presence for as long as possible.
	As for training the Iraqi army, or a new army, Paul Bremmer, the United States civil administrator, last month set out his plans for the establishment of a new, non-political, Iraqi corps. The United Kingdom is supporting that process.

Lord Redesdale: My Lords, has there been any difficulty in calling up further members of the Territorial Army? From talking to members of the Territorial Army, it appears that there is a fear that large numbers of them will be called to serve in the Gulf for an extended period. Are the Government undertaking any research into whether that will cause difficulties as regards obtaining those reserve forces? I know that he is not in his place at present, but perhaps I may welcome back to the House the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, whom, I believe, is at present on leave from the Gulf.

Lord Bach: My Lords, we certainly share with the noble Lord his welcome to the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, to the House and thank him for what he has done as a reservist, as so many other reservists have done for their country.

Noble Lords: Hear, hear!

Lord Bach: My Lords, as for the noble Lord's question, two Written Statements have been made setting out the requirement for the call-out of about 2,700 additional reservists to support on-going operations in Iraq. We have demobilised more than 1,700 reservists who have returned from operations in Iraq. As for the new call out, 850 reservists have already been accepted into service. We know of no difficulty at this stage.

Lord Vivian: My Lords, can the Minister tell us how many multinational brigades will be deployed with 19 Mechanised Brigade as part of 3rd Division when it takes over from 1st Division in July? Which countries will provide the most forces to man those multinational brigades? Perhaps, before I sit down, the House would also accept my welcome for the return of my noble friend Lord Attlee.

Lord Bach: My Lords, as the noble Lord knows, 19 Mechanised Brigade is to take over from forces previously involved in combat operations, starting its task in July but commencing preparations immediately. So far, we have received commitments from seven countries, representing a total multinational contribution to our area of operations of about 5,500 military personnel. It is too early to say what relationship they will have with 19 Mechanised Brigade. The countries involved are Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal and Romania. A Danish battalion, including a light mechanised platoon, has already arrived in Iraq and is making a valuable contribution.

Lord Hylton: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the most urgent task is to train an effective Iraqi police force? Surely that should have priority over training any possible future Iraqi army.

Lord Bach: My Lords, we agree that training an Iraqi police force is critical. Indeed, what we have managed to do up to now in Basra represents a very good start. The noble Lord may have recently seen on television, as I did, a superintendent from the UK police, who is there to train and assist, being interviewed about that. In our area of operations, 5,500 police are already back at work.

Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, can we expect some contribution towards the maintenance and upkeep of a peace-keeping force from those countries that are likely to benefit commercially from the new-found peace in Iraq?

Lord Bach: My Lords, I fear that I cannot assist the noble Lord on that question. We take our obligations seriously. We are lucky enough to be a prosperous, peaceful country. We know that we have obligations to other parts of the world, not least Iraq.

Occupational Pensions

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. The Statement is as follows:
	"With permission, Mr Speaker, I wish to make a Statement on action that the Government propose to take on occupational pensions following the Green Paper.
	"Our proposals build on the historic strength of the United Kingdom's voluntary system—the partnership between government, individuals and employers—which has seen pensioner incomes rise faster than average earnings during the past 20 years, but which now faces real challenges as people are living longer at a time when birth rates are falling. Although the UK is well placed, compared to other countries, to deal with that, more still needs to be done. People need to be able to plan for their retirement and make informed choices about how and when to save and for how long they work, so that they get the income in retirement that they expect.
	"We will make further announcements in due course on: the suite of Sandler products; a better deal for those who take their state pension later; and the proposals outlined in the tax simplification review. But today I want to focus on occupational pensions. They are under pressure now and we need to take early action.
	"So I am setting out a balanced package of reform that better focuses regulation on the things about which people are most worried, so that we can cut burdens on business and increase member confidence in pensions. We will strengthen the protection of pension rights that people have built up, to ensure that rights promised will be rights delivered. Getting that balance right means taking a tough look at areas where regulation has grown out of all proportion. It also means taking action to deal with the demands of an increasingly dynamic economy, in which companies are taken over and people move between jobs more frequently.
	"In February we tackled the challenge of two-tier workforces, to extend protection of pension rights to new starts working in many previously public enterprises. But it must be wrong that solely because of a takeover, workers in any private company have their rights scrapped. That is why I can announce that we are extending that same TUPE protection of pensions to private sector transfers.
	"We will insist that where pension rights have been established the new employer will need to match employee contributions, up to 6 per cent, into a stakeholder pension or offer an equivalent alternative. That is a fair adjustment. It builds confidence in pensions and reflects company best practice.
	"I am clear that in a voluntary system such protection of rights must be balanced with measures that make it easier for companies to set up and run good schemes for their employees. As I have stressed before:
	'Pensions simplification has to be at the heart of any strategy to encourage greater pension provision'.
	In a voluntary system we must be mindful of the costs for providers. Over the years, regulation has built up, often for the best of intentions, into a layer cake of complexity. That cannot be right. If we are to make the voluntary system work more effectively, we need to ensure that regulation is well targeted and effective. That is why today I can confirm that we will be driving ahead with measures to cut regulations and costs on companies running schemes.
	"We will replace the minimum funding requirement with scheme-specific funding arrangements. We will simplify and consolidate legislation in key areas to make it easier to administer pension schemes. Taking account of consultation responses, we will go further than we signalled in the Green Paper. We will radically reform Section 67 of the Pensions Act 1995 to give schemes more freedom to adapt to changing circumstances without closing or even having to wind up.
	"I am also advancing a raft of specific simplification measures, such as streamlining the requirements on member-nominated trustees and improving dispute procedures, ending the requirement to offer AVCs, and less bureaucratic reporting arrangements.
	"I have received submissions—from the Pickering review and from others—that we should abolish compulsory inflation indexation because the requirements are too onerous and expensive. While they make some important points about knock-on effects of costs putting schemes at risk, I do not believe that we should do away with indexation.
	"However, guaranteed indexation of five per cent was proposed in 1995 when market long-term expectations of inflation were at five per cent. Today, because of the stable macro-economic framework the Government have put in place, inflation has been driven down to average just 2.4 per cent over the year since 1997. That means we are effectively forcing purchase of full inflation cover, something which may be disproportionately expensive. I therefore propose that the cap on mandatory indexation will now be set at 2.5 per cent, giving schemes and their members more flexibility to agree together on the form of pension that suits them best—and easing funding pressures.
	"There will be no effect on the value of today's pensioners' rights. It is a measure for future accruals only, to give more freedom to design schemes in the most sensible way. We will keep survivors' benefits—to make any change there would have a bad effect on women's pension prospects in particular. But with increased flexibility we need to make sure that employees' rights are protected without employers winding up their schemes as a result. So I can announce today that we will set up a new, proactive pensions regulator to focus on tackling fraud, bad governance and poor administration. It will adopt a proportionate approach—making sure that members are protected, while reducing burdens on well-run schemes.
	"Pensions are a voluntary partnership and it is for workers and employers to decide what type of scheme suits them best. We have seen welcome examples in recent months of employers and trade unions deciding together how best to ensure continuing high quality provision. We set out in the Green Paper a proposal to require employers to consult scheme members before making changes. I can now confirm that, working with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, I will be taking this into effect to strengthen partnership in pensions.
	"But examples of good practice are too often overshadowed by cases where employers have gone back on promises, causing anxiety. People also worry about the get-out clause which lets solvent companies which could afford to keep their pension scheme running wind it up with inadequate compensation. In the cases where firms have done this it has inflicted damage on confidence in the whole system. People worry that other schemes will follow suit. We need to act to make sure that a pension promise made by employers is a pension promise honoured by employers.
	"We will therefore strengthen member protection where solvent employers decide to wind up their pension scheme. I have placed in the House draft regulations to apply to schemes that are winding up from today. So, as from now trustees will have the power to make solvent employers who choose to wind up their schemes buy out members' accrued rights in full. This will greatly increase security for members of solvent schemes.
	"But there is one further issue we must tackle. Sometimes, when firms go bust, the money is not there to meet pension commitments. Recent cases have shown the terrible injustice when this happens and I believe that the public are right to demand action. We should not accept that just because a firm goes out of business workers can find that a pension they have saved for all their working life is worth next to nothing. Our Green Paper set out options for sharing out assets more fairly. Today I can announce that we will change the priority order to give greater weight to those who have been in the scheme longest. We will lay draft regulations shortly. I hope that the honourable Members for Havant and Northavon will welcome the cross-party agreement on this point.
	"But we need to go further. Ever since I started looking at this I have asked, if people expect their holiday or motor insurance to be covered if a firm goes bust, then why not cover for something as important as a pension? We are therefore going to legislate to set up a pensions protection fund. This fund will take over the schemes of insolvent companies to ensure not only that pensions in payment are protected but that those still working can be sure of getting 90 per cent of what they were promised. It will be paid for by a fixed-rate levy and an additional risk-related premium which, together with a salary cap, will minimise perverse incentives and moral hazard. The pension protection fund will be a non-government body. It will meet its obligations through the power to set and vary the level of charge without recourse to public funds. Taken with the other measures this is a big extension of pension security, for the first time guaranteeing protection if a company scheme goes bust.
	"To conclude, I have always said that my aim is to build a wide and deep consensus in this country that embraces employers, employees and pensioners. This is a balanced package to reduce the costs and complexity of regulation, making it easier for employers to run schemes while in return making sure pensions promised are pensions delivered. Many of the proposals will require legislation which the Government will bring forward as soon as parliamentary time allows. These measures will protect the rights of millions of pensioners and employees across the country".
	My Lords, that concludes the Statement. I commend it to the House

Lord Higgins: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement made in another place.
	The Statement is clearly important. The reality is that there is a crisis in pensions provision, both in the state and in the private sector. The Government have remained remarkably complacent on the issue. They have published their Green Paper, but not provided time, either in this House or another place, for it to be debated. The reality is this: having moved the pensions Minister into a Labour Party job, he has still not been replaced after two months. That reflects the general attitude of the Government to the importance of the issues. None the less the Statement is welcome in a number of respects, even though its central provision is, in a sense, a council of despair because it is insuring for failure.
	The crisis is due to some extent to measures beyond the Government's control. However, the crisis is significantly due to measures that the Government have themselves taken—most notoriously the raid on the ACT pensions fund—which have generated a general crisis of confidence in pensions and savings. The savings ratio has halved since this Government came to office.
	However, I begin by welcoming the proposal to change from the minimum funding requirement to a scheme-specific situation. I welcome the scheme for making it easier for companies to adapt to changed circumstances without closing or winding up a scheme—something which noble Lords on these Benches have been advocating. I add a particular welcome to the proposals not to force company schemes to introduce AVC arrangements. I have spent many hours trying to sort out problems relating to Equitable Life—many AVCs were in Equitable Life—and was unbelievably frustrated by the fact that trustees cannot give advice to those who were affected without incurring criminal charges.
	We shall examine with care the proposal for a new pro-active pensions regulator. Regarding the proposals on winding up, I shall deal, first, with those on solvent companies where the Government are proposing that trustees will have powers to buy out accrued pension rights in full. Clearly, there has been abuse in this area. We shall need to examine the proposals in detail when the legislation is brought forward, but my initial feeling is that that is also welcome. Looking overall at the Statement's proposals, can the noble Baroness tell us whether she thinks that they will accelerate or slow down the closure of final salary schemes to new members?
	Regarding the winding up of companies that have gone bust and the question of sharing the assets more fairly, I believe it is right that the question should be over how long a person has been in a scheme, rather than his age. When calculating how long a person has been in a scheme, will allowance be made for the fact that he may have been in another scheme which has been merged with his own? Will the whole of that period be taken into account? Moreover, if there has been a merger, will account be taken of the fact that the amount of surplus or deficit in the two merged funds may not be the same? How will that be dealt with fairly?
	The central part of the Government's proposals has two sections. On the one hand, we have the proposal for an insurance scheme for occupational pensions, and, on the other, the proposal on inflation. The Government are seeking to ameliorate the crisis that has arisen, to a significant extent, as a result of their own policies.
	It is proposed that there should be an insurance scheme, but one that will incur costs to pensioners. A number of important issues arise in that respect. First, there is the risk of moral hazard—the question of whether an insurance scheme exists. Trustees and companies will be rather more inclined to take risks than would otherwise be the case. Secondly, there is the question of whether costs will tend to fall on prudent and well-managed schemes to cover the failures of less well-managed schemes.
	The proposal is strange in one respect. There is to be a levy at a fixed rate with a risk premium and a salary cap. I do not understand what is meant by those expressions. At all events, in plain, simple terms, it is the equivalent of a tax. But it will then go into a fund. The problem is that we cannot be assured—certainly, the American experience does not reassure us—that the scheme will remain solvent. The Government use the word "guarantee" although it is linked with insurance, but there can only be a guarantee if the Government stand behind the scheme at the end of the day. To the extent that the contributions are effectively a tax, I am not entirely clear why the scheme has been designed in such a way that it is effectively an independent, free-standing organisation without government backing. There are real problems with that side of the proposals. As I said, the Government are insuring for the fact that companies may fail against a background in which the situation has deteriorated so much in recent years that such a scheme is now felt to be necessary.
	There is another side to the coin. In order to reduce the costs to companies providing this insurance, and bearing in mind the difficulties that I have already outlined, it is proposed to reduce the present inflation protection afforded to many people in company schemes. At present, it is either the rate of inflation or a maximum of 5 per cent, whichever is the lower. The Government propose to get rid of the 5 per cent limit on the extraordinary argument that we can be reassured that, as inflation is now down to 2.5 per cent, we need not worry about it going up to 5 per cent. That protection is being removed. If the Government were to guarantee that inflation will never go over 2.5 per cent, there would be no loss to individuals. I do not know, although perhaps the noble Baroness can enlighten us, whether the Government propose to say that inflation will not go over 2.5 per cent.
	In order to balance the insurance scheme, the Government are reducing the benefits that many pensioners enjoy at present. That is unsatisfactory. Incidentally, the Statement is wrong when it says that at present companies are effectively forced to purchase a full inflation cover; that is not so. They are forced to cover it up to 5 per cent in making their calculations as to what the contribution should be.
	In making his Statement in another place the Secretary of State said that he hoped we could move towards consensus. I have indicated that there are a number of areas that we can welcome, but there are others that will require extremely careful consideration. The noble Baroness and I, after three or four different pensions Bills of one sort or another, have always sought to improve them and reach consensus. If legislation is introduced in the autumn and appears first in the other place, I do not doubt that the Government will, again, have a heavy programme. They will not scrutinise it properly in the same way as happened with the previous pensions Bill, and we shall be left to clear up the mess.
	None the less, these are important proposals. At least, finally, the Government have recognised that there is a crisis in pension provision. These measures deal only with the private rather than the public sector. Much more needs to be done about state pensions, as virtually every interest group in the country has said. This is an important issue. We look forward to debating it further with the Government.

Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay: My Lords, I start with a welcome for five of the announcements we have just heard—extending TUPE protection to private sector transfers; replacing the MFR with scheme-specific arrangements; setting up a new, more active pensions regulator; restricting solvent employer wind-ups; and, most important, changing the priority order to protect long-serving employees when a pension fund winds up. All those changes make good sense and show the value of cross-party agreement.
	I focus today on the proposed new pensions protection fund and declare my interest as a pension fund investment manager since 1976. I regret to have to say that this do-it-yourself scheme is a cruel deception. As usual in the big questions in pensions policy, the Government are sticking thin plaster over a gaping wound. Pensioners in defaulting schemes will get not a penny from the Government, nor are the Government prepared to act as a guarantor of last resort as they do in the Pool Re scheme, which covers buildings against terrorist attack.
	In the worst pensions funding crisis in British history, this scheme just reshuffles pension funds' existing resources and forces solvent funds of employers who have faced up to their responsibilities to bail out the laggards that companies have been unwilling or unable to support. It will drive another nail into the coffin of defined benefit schemes. It is one thing to ask responsible employers to make sacrifices and run risks to protect their own schemes; it is quite another to force them, if they maintain a scheme, to sign a blank cheque to fill black holes in their competitors' funds. In America, the model for the Government's plan—the Federal Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation—has enjoyed more than quarter of a century of mainly strong stock markets, but it is still more than 5 million US dollars in deficit. That is a stark warning that I do not have time to go into now. But take it from me—it is a warning of the dangers we now face. The corporation concludes that there is only a 30 per cent chance of its being in surplus in 10 years' time, and states that its,
	"current challenges may require a policy response to rescue the financial strength of the pension insurance system".
	Our Government have chosen to follow that crumbling American model, with one crucial difference. In America everyone knows that the government stand behind the FPBGC. It has the right to borrow from the Treasury. The chairman is the Secretary of Labor and the other two directors are the Secretaries of Commerce and the Treasury. The President of the United States appoints its advisory committee of nine members.
	If the Government really mean business, why are Andrew Smith, Patricia Hewitt and Gordon Brown not prepared to be directors of a similar British fund? The pensions Minister could hardly be chairman. There would have been no board meeting for the past two months. New biographical details would have been sent out more often than annual reports.
	The problem with the scheme is who decides which funds have to pay the risk-based extra premiums and how much. What will it cost? Who will insure the insurers? How will its funds be managed? The comparison that the Government make with holidays and car insurance is nonsensical. If a travel firm or a motor insurer goes bust, it is easy to assess the loss. One can buy one's holiday or insurance policy somewhere else next year. Pensions are an enormous, long-term commitment. Any insurance scheme must involve considerable systemic risks and a completely different scale of problem in fixing premiums.
	From these Benches we respect the Government's good intentions, but they are no substitute for the big decisions and backing from the Treasury that are needed to make pension schemes safe.
	I have a final question for the noble Baroness on another topic. Six months after the pensions Green Paper was published, the Government can say only,
	"We will come forward with a further announcement in due course",
	on the tax simplification proposals. When will they admit what everyone in British business and the pensions industry knows, and what must have been the overwhelming message of the responses to the Green Paper—that their proposed £1.4 million snapshot valuation of people's pension fund rights when they retire, with a 65 per cent tax rate above that cap, will hit hundreds of thousands of managers and professionals, not the 5,000 people claimed by the Treasury?
	Will the Government also confirm, after their evasive answer to my written Question last week, that the £1.4 million ceiling for tax relief will apply equally to everyone in the public as well as the private sectors? The rules must be the same for all, no matter how mighty their office.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am sure that it was disguised, but I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, welcomes this Statement, along with the noble Lord, Lord Higgins. I turn first to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins. I cannot resist challenging one political point. As part of his opening peroration, he said that we were ensuring failure. No, we are ensuring confidence in saving for retirement so that people are willing to save more or work longer. Those are our objectives and, by any honest, honourable and objective test, this action plan will address those two objectives. That is what stands behind our concerns.
	The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, made some specific points. He asked whether I believed that our proposals would accelerate or slow down the closure of DB schemes to new members. It is a difficult line to draw because, as he will respect, we are striking a balance because pension promise is voluntary. On the one hand, we want greater protection for members who have forgone their savings. On the other hand, given that the employer is required to stand behind the promise, we want to ensure that such burdens of regulation are not so onerous that we encourage employers to vote with their feet. That is a dilemma we all understand and share.
	I hope that, especially with regard to points I shall go on to make, we have made it sufficiently attractive that nothing we are currently doing should encourage employers to close DB schemes. I hope that many more will continue to keep them open. However, if they offer defined contribution schemes to their members, that can be a satisfactory alternative if, and only if, the employer's contribution remains at roughly the same level as would have gone into DB schemes. The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, knows as well as I and other noble Lords that the problem is not so much the move from DB to DC schemes but that when it happens, employer's contributions halve from an average of 12 per cent to 6 per cent. That is why they have often proved to be a relatively poor deal for employees.
	The noble Lord asked about the merger of two schemes, which he has also asked me about in a private context. My understanding is that the answer depends upon the terms of the arrangement of bringing the two schemes together operated by trustees, but I need to take further advice. If he would like to give me the details, I shall give him a more full reply and also place it in the Library. My understanding is that it depends on the terms and conditions of the trustees' arrangements when the two schemes came together.
	The noble Lords, Lord Higgins and Lord Oakeshott, then developed their arguments about insurance, the pension protection scheme, and questions of risk and moral hazard. As the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, identified, the pension protection fund will have two elements, basically a per capita element on schemes funded by employers and a risk levy associated with a degree of underfunding so that those companies most at risk of defaulting make a proportionately higher contribution to the pensions protection fund. That is right. At the end of the day, insurance is inevitably pooled risk. We should all accept that when one chooses an insurance scheme, there will be occasions on which good funds are cross-subsidising poorer funds.
	None the less, the experience in the United States is positive. Despite the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, it is not the case that the American Government stand behind the scheme in the sense of making good any funding deficit. The American scheme is 90 per cent funded and has approximately 25 billion dollars' worth of assets even after a fairly difficult stock market and recent experience of companies defaulting. That shows it is reasonably healthy.
	The question behind the one asked, which, in all integrity, I put back to both noble Lords, is that if they are calling for the Government to underwrite the scheme, they are basically saying that taxpayers should underwrite pension promises that are a private arrangement between employers and employees. The implication of that is twofold. First, one would probably increase the risk of moral hazard because instead of pension schemes being policed by their peers, so to speak, they would know that a bad scheme winding up and possibly going into default was able to draw upon the Government. There is no government money apart from that provided by taxpayers, which brings me to the second implication of what the noble Lords are saying.
	Taxpayers who may not be in occupational pension schemes—they may be self-employed and have access to no such scheme—would be asked to cross-subsidise those who are in schemes that, even after winding up, are relatively attractive to their own situation. I am not sure that, on reflection, that is a form of redistribution that noble Lords, especially on the Liberal Democrat Benches, really want to sign up to. I hope that that reflection occurs.
	The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, pressed me about the limited RPI and price indexation. He is quite right. What we are doing is reducing our estimate of the inflation that companies need to make to provide against indexation from 5 per cent to 2.5 per cent. I am sure that he will know that, since 1997, the average rate of inflation has been about 2.4 per cent., below the 2.5 per cent we are talking about, and that all the Treasury and European forecasts suggest that it may fall even lower. Having said that, the noble Lord may be less aware of this statistic: our research suggests that the RPI alignment of 5 per cent is costing providers of DB schemes 23 per cent of their costs. By reducing the figure to 2.5 per cent, we will reduce that 23 per cent by 4 per cent. That is not such a significant change as he indicated, but it allows us to float the cost of the levy so that the overall package, as he will know from the brief statement at the end, will be broadly neutral.
	I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, would be the first to complain if, as a result of the package that we are putting before your Lordships today, the cost to business grew exponentially. As a result, we believe that most people would be willing to trade a modest reduction in indexation against a huge leap forward in security, which is what I hope our propositions today, when delivered in legislation, will guarantee.

Lord Marsh: My Lords, noble Lords on these Benches have a particular problem. We had no advance notice of any Statement. However, that is a problem that we should pursue through the usual channels, rather than now.
	We are dealing with a major and complex issue, especially as regards the Government's Statement—which, if I may say so, was delivered at a pretty fast pace. In my view, it is impossible to treat it seriously and discuss it properly in as quick a time as this. I query the extent to which the Minister appeared not to be drawing the line on the key issue; namely, that pension schemes of the type that we are discussing belong to those who contribute to them, both employers and employees. They do not belong to successive governments.
	Does the Minister agree that this particular pension problem is the result of a combination of factors over a long period of time that began to emerge under the previous government, who did nothing about the problem? Does the Minister further agree that the strength of pension funds does not depend upon the fluctuations in share prices when we start to talk about what has recently happened to the market; it is overwhelmingly dependent upon income stream? The present Government destroyed that stream when they decided to raid the funds to the tune of £5 billion a year, which presumably means to date about £30 billion in total. That turned yesterday's problem into today's crisis.
	The one point I make—and I shall sit down after this, because it is not possible to reply to the Statement, as it was too difficult to absorb—is that it is crucial that governments, of both sides, do not walk away with the idea that they carry no blame whatsoever for the present situation, about which they had a great deal of warning.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, on the last point, I am disappointed that the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, whose expertise on pensions I much respect, sees fit to revisit ACT issues. I would expect it from the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, but not from the Cross Benches. I am also intrigued that when talking about ACT and £5 billion the noble Lord never brigades this, as the critics never do, with the offset in corporation tax which occurred at the same time, such that as far as I am aware we have the most supportive corporation tax regime in the OECD, and certainly in Europe. It is never mentioned. Funny that.
	The noble Lord made a point about my speed of delivery with regard to the Statement and particularly the action plan, for which I apologise. But the noble Lord will be aware that the Secretary of State delivered the Statement to the House of Commons at 12.30 p.m. today, over three hours ago, and from the time he rose to make it the action plan introduced in it was available to all Members of your Lordships' House in the Printed Paper Office. Three hours is not a bad run at it, although I accept that the matter is very complicated and will require the continuous and ongoing attention of your Lordships in the future.

Lord Barnett: My Lords, my noble friend will be aware that the Select Committee on Economic Affairs in this House is looking at the economic aspects of ageing. Her Secretary of State will give evidence in a few weeks' time. Therefore, I do not want to take up—indeed, one could not—the whole of such a major Statement as she has just made.
	In answer to a question, my noble friend mentioned the serious point about giving confidence to employees to save for retirement. Does she accept that such confidence can be given in the long term only if there is all-party agreement on the kind of pensions system we are putting in place? I was sorry that both the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, who I never suspect of these things, and the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, tended to make one or two party political points, which are not appropriate on this occasion if we are to achieve that cross-party agreement.
	My noble friend talked about the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, seeming to argue that the taxpayer would have to subsidise employees and employers in pension schemes. I am sure that that was not what he intended, and I see him shaking his head in agreement. But how does my noble friend think one can give a total guarantee to any pension scheme, in order to give confidence to employees, without at least a backstop of a government guarantee of some kind?

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, at the core of this matter is the fact that pensions are a voluntary partnership between employers and employees. It is for the trustees of the companies concerned, operating in future under the broad-brush regime to be established by the new kind of regulator, with the professional advice of actuaries and so on, to introduce into their schemes arrangements for the levy on employers and employees which will make the schemes financially viable according to scheme-specific funding.
	Over and beyond that, we have told employers "If, however, your company"—and we all know which company we are referring to—"is fully solvent and walks away, as from today you may not walk away without making your liabilities fully paid up". We are also saying to employees, who may be worried that the company's pension fund may become insolvent, that we have rearranged the order of wind-up priorities, and that we have also introduced, through the pension protection fund, a levy, policed by the industry and provided by the industry, which should meet its obligations. We have also done other things to encourage security, from TUPE arrangements to cash equivalent transfer values for people who have been in schemes for a very short period of time, and so on.
	What we are telling employees is "Because this is a voluntary arrangement into which you have entered with your employer, we cannot protect you against depredations resulting from what may happen to the stock market". We all know that if the stock market index were at 6,000, or something like that, this dimension of the debate would lack much of its urgency.
	What we can do, as the Government, is to try to get the balance right. On the one hand, we can try to ensure that employers continue to provide such schemes. Also, through the proposals that I have outlined—the new kind of regulators, the enhanced role and training for trustees, the pension protection fund, the full pay-out requirements for solvent companies and the like—we can say "We will give you best security, provided employer and employee meet their obligations". If an employer fails to do so, we have these insurance networks in place.
	I was asked whether the Government would act as standby. I have already addressed that point, and we may simply have to disagree on it.

Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, the Statement was about a complex package of protections, insurance and guarantees. The sums involved in totality must be very large. What estimate have the Government made of the total cost impact of this package on industry—employers and employees? The noble Baroness the Minister surely cannot be saying that it is all covered by a relaxation of the indexation allowance.
	If estimates have been made, will the Government publish them? These are very big costs which will fall on industry, and they will have an impact on industry's ability to fund pension schemes in the future.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, broadly, the answer is in the annex—"Summary of funding and administrative savings and costs"—to the document. We estimate that the scheme costs may go up by between £300 million and £500 million and the savings will be of the same order. It is cost-neutral, because we are not just talking about LPI, which is only a proportion of it. We are also talking about significant administrative savings in Section 67, the arrangement of AVCs and quite a lot of the other "techie" aspects of pension handling which produce such a high cost to employers. Our best estimate, in good faith, is that this will be broadly cost neutral to industry as a whole.

Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for introducing the Statement. It should be warmly welcomed, because it shows that the Government are making a real attempt to deal with what a number of us regard as a crisis in pension provision.
	There are a number of matters that we need to discuss in much greater detail when we have had the opportunity to look at what might be called the small print of what the Government now propose.
	If I understood my noble friend correctly, she said that the intention was to offer full TUPE protection to pensions in the event of mergers and take-overs. If that is the case, it should be very much welcomed, because the unions have been asking for that for a considerable time.
	As for the pension protection fund, we should like the opportunity to debate it in more detail, because a number of noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, have raised some very pertinent points about it. When there was some discussion of the Green Paper among those of us who are interested in pensions, it was suggested that a scheme providing some sort of insurance or backup cover for final salary pensions in the event of insolvency was likely to get off the ground or be welcomed only if the Government stood behind it. This is a problem that we shall have to look at when we have the opportunity to discuss the matter in more detail.
	My noble friend did not say much about stakeholder pension provision. Employers have only to offer access; they are not bound to make any contribution. Probably for that reason, the take-up of stakeholder pensions has been rather disappointing. Can my noble friend tell us a little more about that?
	Generally speaking, this indicates that the Government are making an attempt to deal with what is a very real problem in pension provision. As my noble friend knows, I am a great supporter of final salary schemes, which were one of the great successes of the last century. Because of those schemes, many retirees today are enjoying far more comfortable retirements than they might otherwise have done. Indeed, perhaps their retirements are more comfortable than some people may have in the future. Everything possible should be done to encourage employers to maintain final salary schemes, and even to put them into operation where they do not have them. They provide a means of ensuring that people enjoy a more comfortable retirement.
	However, compulsory payments into employer schemes, which were suggested in one of the papers we discussed recently, would not be welcomed by scheme members unless they were sure that the investment they were making was sufficiently secure. That is why I welcome the steps being taken by the Government in that direction, but we need to discuss them in much more detail. I hope that we shall have the opportunity to do so.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for her comments. Speaking as a former member of the Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority, she has great experience in this field, in particular its regulatory aspects. I thank her especially for her comments about TUPE. Along with other noble Lords, my noble friend has called for the Government to stand behind the pension protection fund. I continue to put it to noble Lords that, aside from all the issues regarding taxpayers' responsibility, that would seem to increase the risk of moral hazard rather than to reduce it.
	Her substantive point concerned stakeholders. Of course she is right to say that although a substantial and valuable number of people have taken up stakeholder schemes—some 1.25 million or thereabouts—it is obvious that for many companies the schemes have not been delivered; that is, they have become shelved schemes. Although I do not know whether the statistics I received a few months ago are still up to date, they revealed the difficulty that, in a stakeholder scheme where the employer did not make a contribution, take-up stood at only around 13 per cent. Where the employer contributed to such a scheme, the take-up was in the order of 83 per cent. The moral here is that it is not the stakeholder framework that is at issue; rather it is ensuring that employers within a voluntary partnership scheme recognise what I believe to be their moral obligation to meet the future pension needs of their employees.
	I think that those were the major issues raised by my noble friend, but I am sure that we shall continue the debate on these matters.

Baroness Barker: My Lords, in the short time available this afternoon I have been able to read through the report. I cannot help but reflect that it may be a new Labour attempt to avert a general strike such as those taking place across the rest of the continent. How times have changed.
	Does the noble Baroness agree that the main driver for pension reform is informed individuals within schemes? While many proposals in the paper aim towards that end—increasing the power of individuals to change—has she noted that the complexity of contracting-out regulations was cited in the Green Paper as a major barrier to individuals' understanding of the workings of their pension schemes? Can she illustrate further than the points made in the report the steps the Government envisage taking to simplify the contracting-out regulations and when we are likely to see those changes come about?

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am sorry to disappoint the noble Baroness, Lady Barker. I cannot give her the information she has asked for because we have not yet worked through a timetable of the proposals or, indeed, their full content.
	The noble Baroness was absolutely right to point out that pensions, in particular for women, are workplace-driven and therefore information-driven. I am sure that she will welcome many of the proposals set out in the Green Paper to ensure that employers will take a much more proactive view to ensure that people are made aware of the virtues of the schemes.
	I do not want to take up the time of noble Lords, but I shall make a brief point. I was shocked when I encountered a company running a scheme which required a 2.5 per cent contribution from the employee and 12.5 per cent from the employer, and only 47 per cent of the women employees belonged to it. That is foolish by anyone's standards. So much work has to be done in this area.
	I return to the particular point raised by the noble Baroness on contracting-out arrangements. We shall come back to her when our own thinking is clear on this front.

Lord Brookman: My Lords, when I woke this morning, I was feeling pretty chuffed. I read the Western Mail, in which the headline told of success for Cardiff steelworkers and for the union I worked for in representing their interests. The article went on to state that there was an argument for "natural justice" for the Allied Steel and Wire workers. That statement came from a senior departmental source.
	This is a practical situation. Here we have a works that closed down some 12 months ago. It has been purchased by a Spanish steel manufacturer and will reopen later in the year. Will TUPE regulations pertain there? My noble friend stated at the Dispatch Box that this is a forward programme, which implies that any law would not be retrospective for those workers who unfortunately and tragically have lost their rights and pension rights over a number of years. What is the position for the people at Allied Steel and Wire, a company that is to be taken over, but which will have had a gap of over 12 months since it was closed?

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I wish that I could help my noble friend, but I am afraid that I cannot do so. TUPE does not pertain in that situation because, as my noble friend rightly anticipated, these proposals are not retrospective. Aside from all else, the pension protection fund does not yet exist. So I am very sorry, but I cannot give my noble friend the assurance that he would like.

Lord Hayhoe: My Lords, are any public service pension schemes to be affected in any way by what is being proposed? If not, does that mean that the existing inflation-proofing for public sector schemes will continue and that the 2.5 per cent limit announced will not apply? In other words, will the whole of the public service pension provision be insulated from what is being announced today? Does not that make public service employment extremely attractive for young people?

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, that is such a broad-brush question, it is not answerable in the form put to me by the noble Lord. I say that in part because we are dealing with some pension schemes that are funded, some that are pay-as-you-go, some—as is the case for the Civil Service—that are non-contributory but are paid for through adjusted salary arrangements, some of which are contributory, some run by government, some by local authorities and some by other public service boards. Given all the variables, in almost each of those schemes different rules will apply.

Earl Russell: My Lords, rather than gilding my noble friend's lily, may I ask the Minister to take a more wide-angled view and consider the change in the ratio between people's earning lives and their pensionable lives? Fifty years ago, when the school leaving age was 14, it was possible to have a 50-year earning life and a five-year pension life; that is, 10 years' worth of earnings for each year of pension. Today, people often work between the ages of 30 to 50 years, resulting in less than one year's earnings for each year of pension. Does she agree that the solutions to that change go far beyond pensions policy alone? Will she also bear in mind, when considering the difficulties encountered by the young in entering the labour market, the cruel costs of extending higher education to 50 per cent of the age group and the cost of legislation on age discrimination?

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, is absolutely right to say that pensions policies formulated when women derived their pensions from their husbands and those husbands could expect a working life of at least 40 years at 40 hours a week in a fairly stable company, or often in the public sector, are no longer valid because that period is over. That is due in part to the extended education age, but also in part to the very good reason that people are living longer.
	There is a bundle of responses for the noble Lord. In a more limited sense, our action plan addresses ways in which to encourage people through our age-positive programmes and the like to continue working after the age of 65—indeed, to remain in the labour market from 55 years old onwards. We are not saying that we want to raise the age at which the state pension is paid, but we are saying that one of the biggest problems is not that people are not working beyond the age of 65, but that those aged between 55 and 65 who could and should be in the labour market because they have something to offer and they want to work are too often dropping out. We are finding throughout Europe that people are dropping out of the labour market at a younger age while living longer. It is a longevity issue that we have to address.
	In our proposals we are encouraging people very positively to work not only to the age of 65, but beyond, if they wish and need to. We are making generous increments in terms of the deferred state pension so that they can work. People will be able to run their occupational pensions alongside part-time working. A substantive point is that more generally we have a transitional generation. I accept that in future in a family there will be not just the expectation that two will depend on the pension of one, but crucially that we have to encourage all people, women as well as men, to carry their own pension into retirement. If they do so, as I hope they will, as a result we shall have pension prosperity for them as a family and also for them as individuals. Individuals and not families will have to carry pension responsibility over the longer term if we are going to achieve the prosperity that we want everyone to enjoy. I am sure that we all share the noble Lord's perception.

Business

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, perhaps I may remind your Lordships that speakers who are unable to stay to the end of the debate in four hours' time should remove their names from the list of speakers. I also point out to your Lordships that if every speaker continued for 60 seconds after "six" had registered on the clock, the Minister would have minus time in which to reply; he would be totally unable to reply to the debate within the four hours. I am sure that all speakers would wish to hear the Minister's reply.

Countryside

Lord Palmer: rose to call attention to the situation in the British countryside; and to move for Papers.
	My Lords, I am most grateful to my fellow Cross-Bench Peers and especially to my noble friend Lord Tenby for persuading them to allow me this Wednesday slot to call attention to the state of the British countryside. I know how much we are all looking forward to the maiden speech of my noble friend the Earl Marshal and looking at the list of speakers I feel certain that we are going to have a full and wide-ranging debate on all aspects of the British countryside.
	I have to declare an interest as a farmer with a small acreage of forestry. I also open my home and gardens to the public which in turn generates a small amount of income into a very sparsely populated corner of the United Kingdom. I also remind your Lordships that I am president of the British Association of Biofuels and Oils.
	In September last year over 407,000 people, at great inconvenience and cost to themselves, joined the countryside march through the streets of London to try to persuade the Government to listen to their worries and concerns about rural Britain. It was the biggest civil liberties protest in British history and the vast majority of those taking part were non-political. When non-political people feel that those ruling them are out of touch, that is when politicians have to start worrying. To quote the Sun on September 23rd:
	"The countryside marchers were not 'toffs'—they were real people, hard-working people, genuine people".
	The powerhouse of the countryside has to be a healthy, sustainable and profitable agricultural industry. This is why root and branch reform of the CAP is so urgently needed and why the current MTR review must deliver, as it is a constant worry to all of us engaged in agriculture. What one must not forget is that farmers are a complete hostage to so many factors outside their control. They are out in all weathers and they cannot farm from nine-to-five, whether they are arable, livestock or dairy farmers. The right weather at the right time is all-important to yields and to quality.
	It is impossible to prepare accurate budgets for agricultural products without knowing what costs are to grow, harvest, dry and, more importantly, what at the end of the day they will be worth. No other business has to operate under such uncertain conditions. It discourages investment, especially bearing in mind the long turn-around period between investment and yield in the farming world. To change or expand an agricultural enterprise takes careful long-term planning. When I used to make biscuits, we could produce a new product and market it within weeks. In farming, new products can take years to introduce.
	I quote some statistics which I hope will emphasise the real and perilous plight of the farming community. In 1982 I received £114 per tonne for my wheat; last year, 20 years later, the gross figure I received was £62—a drop of 52 per cent. The farm gate price of malting barley has dropped 38 per cent and yet the price of a nip has increased by 116 per cent in the past 15 years. Wages in the agricultural sector have risen by 179 per cent while the basic hours worked have decreased by 3 per cent.
	I am aware of the introduction of the IACS payments, but in reality they fall very far short of giving farmers a decent return. Pre-IACS, my cereal income 20 years ago was £314,000 and last year my cereal income along with my IACS payment was £176,000, which is a drop in income of £182 per acre. Milk is perhaps the only bright star on the horizon. The price paid to the producer has increased by 2.6 per cent over the past 20 years. Yet most producers are losing two pence per litre. To think that bottled water is more expensive than milk is a classic example of the mess, muddle and confusion that we are in.
	I turn to potatoes. Last year the current producer's price of top quality white potatoes was £60 per tonne. That is £13 per tonne less than it was two years ago. And how much does that tonne cost to produce? £73 per tonne. Yet those same potatoes were retailing at just under £1,000 per tonne. Farmers cannot and will not be allowed by the banks to struggle on in such a crazy financial climate. Borrowings by the agriculture industry currently stand at £3 billion, compared with £600 million 30 years ago.
	GM crops offer enormous advantages but there are still serious public concerns about their safety. The Government are facing a major challenge over the public debate. I believe that the Government must ensure we have a system in place whereby the location of GM crops is strictly registered, interested parties are notified well in advance of planting and the media and public have full access to information. This would allay many of the concerns felt about GM crops and lead to a more rational debate about their potential benefits, which could be considerable.
	There is, however, good news. One solution to many of the problems faced in the British countryside would be overcome by the implementation of EC Directive 1003/30/EC. This requires member states to set targets for biofuel use. The guideline is 2 per cent by December 2005; 5.75 per cent by 2010. If those targets were met in the UK, it would give a powerful boost to the rural economy. It would also help the Government meet their own targets for the reduction of greenhouse gases and cutting local air pollution. Two per cent of UK road fuel usage is about 750,000 tonnes. This could easily come from 400,000 to 500,000 hectares, a figure not dissimilar to the amount of land lying idle in the UK under set aside.
	Since ARBRE has gone into liquidation, the Government must accept biomass is neither a financially nor environmentally viable alternative. However, unless the Chancellor changes his present stance there is no chance whatever of that target being achieved. Again I ask: why does all my oilseed rape go from Scotland to Austria and Germany and get turned into biodiesel? This country is being left behind—a tragic wasted opportunity.
	I turn now to forestry. Britain uses about 50 million cubic metres of timber, paper, boards and other wood products each year. Around 85 per cent of this has to be imported at a cost of about £8 billion, our fourth largest single import commodity. In 1992 the total returns of forestry producers were somewhere in the region of 4.4 per cent; by 1996 it had dropped into the red at minus 3 per cent; and in the last year for which statistics were available that minus figure had almost doubled. I hope that the Minister will be able to provide encouragement for all commercial forestry producers.
	Many countryside dwellers have been encouraged to diversify into tourism. Hard-working farmers' wives offer bed and breakfast the length and breadth of Britain. However, for many it is not a viable alternative and their plight was highlighted during the foot and mouth crisis. So often these tiny businesses are strangled in their infancy by red tape bureaucracy and curious tax anomalies. For instance, income from holiday cottages is taxed separately— as are the profits—while the farmer, however, is facing huge losses on his mainline farming business. Not only does this fly in the face of government pleas for farm diversification; it is simply unjust. The Government must encourage small rural businesses to do all they can, not stifle them in infancy.
	In 2002 tourism in the United Kingdom was worth £76 billion and employed 7 per cent of the working population. It is a growing industry which is good for Britain, its people and the countryside. Tourism needs every possible encouragement to continue playing a growing role in our national prosperity. Yesterday's royal visits to the four corners of the United Kingdom to promote tourism were extremely well received, as widely reported in the press today.
	I turn to crime, which appears to be the one area flourishing in the countryside. Some of your Lordships may have seen an article which my brother recently wrote in the Spectator. It was entitled, "We do not do burglary". His motor-bike was stolen. A passer-by had seen it being stolen and went immediately to the nearest police station where he discovered from the officer on duty that they were not interested. I fear that this scenario is repeated throughout the countryside. In remote rural valleys a policeman is seen only once every six months; perhaps three miles away they are busy stopping people for speeding. In rural areas a driving licence is a vital ingredient to everyday life. I feel I must ask whether police rural priorities are correctly focused.
	Many of us living in the countryside are concerned about transport. While my local authority subsidises the local bus company, it is disheartening that almost every time I see a bus it is empty. Would not a subsidised taxi service based on the successful Swedish model be worth considering? It would be particularly welcomed by the elderly and would be far more cost effective, particularly where visits to hospitals, the doctor or dentist are involved.
	There have been 194 closures of rural post offices in the past year alone. To many this is the loss of a vital lifeline, a factor I hope the Government will take on board.
	Whether you own a postage stamp size area of ground or 50,000 acres, in a just society the principle of ownership should be the same. Our rural estates underpin the rural economy and preserve the landscape of our countryside. They are not the preserve of a vested elite but provide a framework for rural diversity in terms of services and jobs. We often read in the press of some of the great estates having to sell pictures or other assets to keep the infrastructure of their estates intact. Many of us believe that this infrastructure is vitally important to British rural life.
	People are the countryside's most vital ingredient. I took on 17 people when I started farming 25 years ago; I am now farming a bigger acreage with only four. Our family has always paid the council tax for our workers and it is interesting to note that 15 years ago 50 tonnes of barley covered the bill. Today it takes 107 tonnes.
	In 1984 there were nearly 7 million hectares under the plough. Last year that figure was well below 6 million. I am aware of the constant need for housing, particularly in the South East, and I hope that the Government will do all they can to encourage further development on brownfield sites. No two areas of the United Kingdom are the same, as revealed in a recent Joseph Rowntree Foundation report. It found that alongside Westminster and Islington, North Devon and Purbeck were among the least affordable areas in England. Knowing what people are able to charge for rented accommodation in the south makes me green with envy. I am lucky to get £45 a week for a two-bedroom cottage.
	If a ban on hunting with hounds becomes law, three things will happen. First, the life of not one single fox will be preserved—the situation in Scotland is proof of that. It must not be forgotten that foxes are vermin and have to be controlled. Secondly, many thousands of rural jobs will be lost. Thirdly, the rural environment, the countryside that so many love, will not be conserved in the way it is today. Surely the Government have more important matters on which to legislate or, indeed, to afford parliamentary time. After the countryside march the Daily Star editorial stated,
	"Let's have a bill to ban banning".
	The noble Lord, Lord Haskins, has proposed a reorganisation of "delivery" agencies in the countryside distinguishing between programme planning, policy and delivery. That could be a massive change for existing agencies such as Defra, English Nature and the Countryside Agency. The challenge for the Government is to demonstrate how the environment will retain its importance at a local level.
	The implementation of the water framework directive will also be a challenge to the Government. If we are to implement the requirements of the WFD we will have to reform the way we use the land. Equally, this will have an influence on agricultural planning and transport policy. How do the Government intend to implement this?
	I have not time to mention so many other important aspects of the countryside such as schools, hospitals, churches and broadband. The British countryside is in dire straits. It needs help and encouragement now before it is too late.
	We must develop a long-term strategy—not one that will simply paper over the cracks. It must involve landowners, farmers, growers, the entire food industry, all government agencies and the Government so that British agriculture and the British countryside can flourish once again. Our great nation surely deserves nothing less.
	The Prime Minister has said that he wants to govern for the whole nation. I believe him and I hope that the Minister will give us that reassurance today. I beg to move for Papers.

Lord Clark of Windermere: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, for choosing this debate and for introducing it in the way that he did. I suspect that all noble Lords in the Chamber have one thing in common; namely, our love and appreciation of, and concern for, the British countryside.
	I was born, brought up, studied, worked and now live in the countryside. I declare an interest as chair of the Forestry Commission. That allows me the opportunity to travel the length and breadth of Great Britain talking to people and discussing the undoubted problems of the countryside.
	In debating the countryside, my greatest concern relates to those who seek to distinguish and divide the town from the country. In a small island we are very much interdependent on each other. In my native Cumbria, I am conscious that when we are sick we may go to Carlisle or to Kendal, but if we are very sick we are taken to Newcastle or Manchester. The visitor who walks around hills one day may well be the theatre nurse at Christie Hospital the next day. We should never forget our interdependence on each other.
	The same problems affect the citizens whether they live in the town or the country; they are simply of a different dimension. If you are sick, you are sick in the country as well as the town. If you are unemployed you have the same problems, but of a different dimension, whether in a city or a rural area. If we become too divisive, we do not serve the purpose that we seek: to ensure that our countryside is vibrant; that it has economic confidence; and that we can see a way forward in the future.
	The noble Lord stated this point clearly. We all agree that agriculture is in a state of deep turmoil. He quoted the figures. I know that they are the right figures. We pour £3 billion into British agriculture every year. Yet we have farmers living on a knife edge who have meagre returns. The figure I have used was that under the CAP only £1 in £3 got through to farmers. The rest was used in export restitution and support for middle men. Little money got through to the producers of our food, or the people who look after our countryside. I hope that through the mid-term review, to which the noble Lord referred, we shall have a fundamental change.
	We should not short-sell those who live in the countryside. The educational standards of our young people in rural areas are higher than in urban areas. Equally, economic activity in the rural areas, difficult though it may seem to be, is higher than in the urban areas and is increasing at a faster rate.
	If we are seeing a reorganisation of agriculture—as, clearly, we are—we need another driver for the rural economy. In many areas that may well be IT. But, as the noble Lord suggested, it is certainly tourism. I commend his activity in this field. Perhaps I may give a couple of examples from my sphere of forestry. We seek to apply lateral thinking in the countryside which will provide an economic opportunity for regeneration. The noble Lord made the point that timber prices in Britain are at their lowest ever in real terms. It is hardly worth while chopping down trees. That applies to state forestry as well as to private forestry. We have sought to look at other ways of utilising estate. Clearly, forestry is about more than trees: it is also about the spaces between the trees. We need to think laterally.
	I cite the classic example. With a stroke of luck and some good planning, we have ospreys in my native county of Cumbria. We put flat tops on trees. The ospreys came back. Last year, 110,000 people came to see the ospreys. We estimate that with capital spending that brought £2 million into the local economy. Very little went to the Forestry Commission because all we charge for is the odd car. But all the rest of the money has gone into the local economy. Equally, in north Wales, at Coed y Brenin, we spent about £100,000 putting in cycle paths. Two years later, the consultants estimated that that had brought £4 million into the local economy.
	We must start thinking laterally. If we do, we can start another way of economically regenerating the countryside.

Lord Monro of Langholm: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, for initiating the debate and for putting the case so brilliantly for the countryside. I, too, declare an interest as a farmer and a member of numerous organisations connected with the countryside.
	It is a coincidence that this debate occurs while on the Continent the mid-term review of the CAP is being discussed. I am filled with concern that inevitably farming, which is already depressed, will be worse off after those deliberations than it is now. With the notable exception of our noble friend Lord Whitty who is always present and in good humour, Ministers disappoint me by showing so little enthusiasm for farming and rural life. They seem to wish that problems would go away. I fear that they will get worse and worse.
	I followed yesterday's debate with increasing worry about the future. Cannot everyone involved see that the retention of the beauty of our landscape, the habitat, wildlife and food production depends on profitable farming? Without that, we shall have run-down buildings, derelict land and abandoned rural communities. I have seen all that in the US. But we, too, are on the same slope. We see abandoned rural schools, abandoned churches, many abandoned post offices and shops, and communities following suit.
	Council tax in rural areas is bearing highly and heavily on the population. In Scotland, those who follow the Scottish press will know that the water industry is out of control. Water charges have increased between 25 per cent and 500 per cent. Much of that bears heavily on the farming industry and rural industries. It is all desperately serious. But at the same time the Government are supporting policies which will reduce farm income. Decoupling and cross-compliance will have that effect. Can anyone present who has studied the mid-term CAP and read the report of the noble Lord, Lord Selborne, explain how incomes will be retained if grants are taken from Pillar 1 to Pillar 2? Any major reform of the CAP will mean less income for agriculture.
	How can the average farmer, who is playing his part in enhancing the environment, obtain a reasonable income from the CAP proposals. Modulation is already biting, but where is the money taken from farmers going into the environment? I have yet to see it. Most importantly, it is essential that grants and agricultural support are attached to the land in future, and not to the farmers; otherwise we shall have immense problems in buying and selling land.
	It is interesting that while we say that we must do all this because of the enlargement of the Community and the World Trade Organisation, the US, which is vociferous about world trade, has given huge new grants to farming in America.
	Who is really looking after the countryside in the United Kingdom? I hoped that the Countryside Agency would take a much more prominent position on behalf of the agricultural industry. It must give much more leadership. It seems far too tied up with rights of way and the right to roam and its budget has been swallowed up arranging maps and answering complaints and appeals. The Minister must free the agency from being a government department and allow it to be the agency it was set up to be.
	It is disappointing that in The State of the Countryside 2020, published not long ago, there was no word about the value of country sports to the countryside and to tourism. Will the Minister affirm to the House what the Prime Minister has said elsewhere—that shooting and fishing have nothing to worry about from a Labour government in future?
	I am concerned about planning, as wind farms go up everywhere and there are radio masts on the top of every hill. The Government seem to be turning over every appeal and giving approval for these unsightly monstrosities.
	As the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, so rightly said, the Minister should give us some long-term ideas for the future. At the moment, we are sunk in jargon from the market such as modulation, de-coupling, cost compliance and degressivity. That is double Dutch to the average farmer. It is high time the Government brought together all the reports done by distinguished people in the past year or two. A long-term view should be drawn from those reports of where we ought to go in practical terms. That is what farmers want to know.

Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, for introducing the subject. I shall refer to other subjects that affect the rural community.
	Will the Minister give us some assurance that the vast sums of money being spent and, I believe, partly wasted on the mainline railway are not at the expense of the peripheral railway? I hope that we shall not see the lines that are less used being sacrificed for the sake of the West Coast Main Line.
	Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, I do see people on rural buses. The cost inflation indicators for the bus industry are quite different from those for ordinary cost inflation. Costs are going up very quickly—wage and insurance costs particularly—as the no-win-no-fee culture takes hold. The effect of the working time directive on the bus industry will be huge. Should not subsidies be tied to some new inflation indicator? Oxfordshire, my own county, is offering something over 1 per cent when inflation is running at something like 10 per cent in the industry. In addition, the rural bus grant has been woefully misdirected; it is being spent on what I would call "no hope" services, when the true marginal services are dropping out of the net for lack of support.
	I turn to housing. Although it may be possible to rent a house for £45 a week in the area where the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, lives, that would be a laughable figure in Oxfordshire. A special effort is needed to house the indigenous population of rural areas. Parish councils should be allowed to specially designate areas for housing for indigenous people, and those houses should be protected from the right-to-buy legislation. In that way, permanent housing in the countryside would remain available for countryside people, not retired or even practising accountants.
	The noble Lord, Lord Palmer, also referred to the issue of law and order. I have two issues to put to the Minister. First, hare coursing is a particularly troublesome issue—a very rural issue—as are unlicensed raves. Could the law be updated so that, instead of seizing equipment and dogs, the police are empowered to seize the vehicles of people who care nothing for the law and take up very large amounts of police time, which is then unfortunately not spent on catching motorists? Those people believe themselves to be above the law.
	Secondly, the issue of access is important. I refer not to the access talked about under the right to roam but access to national trails and bridleways, which are consistently being ruined in many parts of rural England by the activities of people using quad bikes, motorcycles and four-wheel-drive vehicles. As with heavy lorries using country roads, it is not good enough to rely on the effectiveness of traffic orders. They are expensive for county councils to promote and are thoroughly ineffective and slow, they require huge police resources in order to prosecute and the fines are derisory. We need a proper prohibition of certain types of vehicles in certain places, and the presence of such a vehicle, once noted, should be sufficient ground for proper prosecution.
	Lastly, I refer to road safety. My noble friend Lady Scott of Needham Market referred to this matter in Committee on the Railways and Transport Safety Bill last week. About half the casualties on our roads happen in rural areas; excessive speed in rural areas is no doubt a large factor, coupled with the fact that the roads are not very well maintained. Will the Minister say something about the review of the road hierarchy that is being undertaken, and when we can expect to see some results?

The Duke of Norfolk: My Lords, I must start by saying how honoured and humbled I am to be making my maiden speech. I admit to a touch of nervousness, but I cannot tell your Lordships what a relief it is to enter this House today walking forwards not backwards.
	I, too, am grateful to my noble friend Lord Palmer for introducing this important subject. I must declare an interest, as I farm in West Sussex and own moorland in North Yorkshire.
	In the Countryside Agency's latest annual report, a recent survey shows that over 90 per cent of people living in England consider it important to keep the English countryside the way it is now. For those of us who love and cherish our British countryside, that is heartening news indeed. The problem is that beneath the surface the countryside is suffering, and farming in particular is in real crisis.
	Farming is no longer the largest industry in the countryside, as it contributes only £7 billion to the national economy as against rural tourism, which contributes at least £12 billion. Farmers manage over 75 per cent of the land area of the UK, and they are the linchpin of the tourist industry. Last year, the average UK farmer earned just £11,000 for a 50-hour week; that figure has been in decline for the past six years. In 2002, another 18,000 farmers and farmworkers lost their jobs, bringing total job losses since 1996 to more than 65,000. Many UK farmers are now among the poorest in Europe, and they need our continued assistance to survive.
	The majority of farmers accept that global restructuring is taking place in their industry and that they must embrace change. They are willing to diversify whenever possible and, increasingly, they are entering into agri-environment schemes. They acknowledge their role as managers of the countryside, but at the same time they must be able to make a living out of food production if they are to have a future in the long term.
	One of the main problems facing the farming industry is over-regulation, and every farmer I speak to believes that we are now more regulated in this country than anywhere else in Europe. Bureaucrats in Brussels dream up new regulations and then hand them down to our civil servants in Whitehall, who are expert at re-drafting them, and often adding to them, so that they are as water-tight as possible for the UK. There is a commendable quality in the British nature that then makes us abide by new regulation to the letter, in a way that does not seem to happen in the rest of Europe.
	Our dairy farmers, for instance, have complied with the milk quota regulations from the moment they were introduced in 1984. In Italy, they are still arguing about what the base year level should be 19 years on, and in practice they have avoided milk quotas.
	In this country the IACS form which our arable farmers have to fill in runs to 13 pages. In Ireland, it runs to two. In the livestock sector our regulatory controls are now so severe that it is estimated that compliance costs our farmers 30 per cent more than in other parts of the world. It is hardly surprising, therefore, that our home market is flooded with beef from South America and Ireland, and with lamb from New Zealand.
	A recent example of even more red tape from Brussels is the Animal By-Products Regulation, which, from 1st May, requires all farmers to dispose of their dead animals by taking them to a licensed incinerator or rendering plant. For a sheep farmer in the Yorkshire Dales who loses some of his stock on the open moorland, very often half a mile or more from the nearest road, that is going to be extremely difficult to comply with. Is the scientific evidence behind this latest regulation really robust? Would it not have been just as beneficial simply to regulate that all carcasses buried on a farm must not pollute a water course? Has anyone done an estimate of the extra pollution to the environment of all these farm animal carcass movements and the effects of incinerating them? What about the dead carcasses on our roads? Are councils going to pick them up? What about dead pets?
	If farming in this country is to have a future, we must reduce unnecessary red tape instead of constantly adding to it. We must remove regulation where the benefit is disproportionate to the costs of implementing it. We must get away from the current system of central government trying to micro-manage the farming industry from Whitehall, gold-plating everything that comes out of Brussels. We must find new ways of letting the farming industry regulate itself through farmer assurance schemes, allowing it to produce good-quality food safely, to comply with the high standards demanded by supermarkets and other retail outlets. Somehow we must give the farming industry back to itself and get central government out of it.
	There are many examples in the world where deregulation in an industry has been made to work very successfully. In New Zealand, in 1984, the government decided to deregulate the trucking, shipping and airline industries, with remarkable results. They moved the bias of their transport safety regulations from one of operator compliance to operator accountability. Instead of central government writing the safety rules, and then ensuring that they were being complied with, they made the industry accountable for safety outcomes. The result was that the number of Ministry of Transport regulators in New Zealand was reduced from 4,500 employees to just 57. Safety in the transport industry improved across the board, and prices either stabilised or fell as the industry discovered innovation.
	Deregulating the UK farming industry will not be easy, and it will take time; but somehow we must start this process. The British countryside is one of our national treasures, and farming is its backbone. I believe that Her Majesty's Government must ensure that farming has a future in this country.

The Lord Bishop of Hereford: My Lords, it is a great privilege and pleasure to congratulate the noble Duke the Earl Marshal on his excellent maiden speech. It was a valuable, expert, well-directed and robust contribution to this important debate.
	Your Lordships will all have reasons to remember with great gratitude the immense contribution to this House and to the nation made by the noble Duke's father. It is good to be able to welcome the noble Duke as an active Member of this House. We look forward with enthusiasm to his future contributions to our debates. On a personal note, perhaps I may say what happy childhood memories I have of visits to Arundel—to that wonderful cricket ground and that beautiful part of West Sussex farmed by the noble Duke.
	I, too, must declare an interest as bishop of the most rural diocese in England. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, for securing this debate, for enabling us to range over the enormous canvas of rural life in Britain, and for his outstanding speech in introducing the debate.
	I have been asked to speak specifically about the role of the Church in rural areas. I gladly do so—based on more than 30 years of hands-on rural experience. But, first, perhaps I may make three brief points about farming.
	Our thoughts and prayers are with those negotiating on our behalf in Luxembourg—today, tonight, tomorrow and tomorrow night, or however long it may take—to sort out the outstanding current issues of CAP reform. I hope that they will support Commissioner Fischler with real determination— that they will achieve far-reaching reform; full decoupling; a much strengthened second pillar; and well-directed environmental and rural infrastructure proposals that will create a proper living for farmers. That modulation money must come back into farmers' pockets.
	I want to refer, secondly, to the recommendation by the noble Lord, Lord Haskins, for a significant transfer of rural funding to rural development agencies. I hope that the Minister will think long and hard about that. We do not need further upheaval and change. We need the continuing reform and improvement of Defra and of the Countryside Agency. Many people in rural England doubt whether RDAs are the right bodies to be making decisions about financial support.
	Thirdly, and rather more cheerfully, I want to offer a warm welcome to the recommendations of the Tenancy Reform Industry Group. They will bring real hope and help to beleaguered tenant farmers. The Minister has said that he believes that they are in the right ballpark. I hope that the Government will implement them swiftly.
	I turn to the role of the Church. The parish church has been at the heart of rural communities for 1,000 years—for longer in many cases. Huge social change, social mobility and social fragmentation have radically altered the character of rural community life. But it remains true to say that the Church has a central role in rural communities—ranging in population from hamlets of less than 100 people who still have their own parish church to market towns of several thousand.
	Last Sunday, I had two wonderfully encouraging experiences which proved how true it is that the Church is at the heart of community. The first was in a small market town. The church was full—there were 500 people of all ages from all walks of life—for a civic service to welcome the new mayor and to set the tone to his mayoral year. There were children, young people, representatives of business, farming, the professions and the arts, music of various kinds and morris dancers. There was participation by Christians of five different traditions. There was an air of unity, purpose and commitment which was inspiring. On the same day, in the evening, I was in a very remote church where we celebrated the centenary of the church's rebuilding. The population of that hamlet is 70. There were 65 people in church—not all of them, I have to admit, from the hamlet itself, but wanting to come together to give thanks, to re-commit themselves, with God's help, to being a good, outward-looking, mutually supportive community.
	Mutual support is critical. The foot and mouth outbreak showed what a vital role the Church had in supporting farmers and their families under very great stress. It was extremely well done and greatly valued. But many deep anxieties remain in rural life. The critical level of product prices for farmers has been pointed out. How will decoupling affect farmers in unsupported areas of agriculture?
	Farm borrowing is at record levels. The noble Lord, Lord Palmer, referred to a figure £3 billion. The Bank of England figures I have indicate that it is £7.9 billion—6 per cent up on last year. Social exclusion is a real problem in the deep country where struggling family farmers often resent the arrival next door of a well-heeled hobby farmer who brings city money and a very different lifestyle. The Church has a vital role in pastoral care for everyone, and in encouraging mutual understanding.
	I am not simply talking about the Church of England. In many rural areas, the Anglican parish church may be the only building but its congregation will include Roman Catholics and Free Church people who are more than welcome, and many rural churches incorporate in their worship elements from traditions other than the Church of England.
	However, we need—we desperately need—more realistic help from society at large towards the maintenance of our historic built heritage. The Church of England is the least well-supported Church in Europe from that point of view. Our congregations have gladly maintained their historic buildings for many centuries but the strain is acute and radical change is needed. Communities are much more important than buildings but the buildings matter and are a precious inheritance and a national treasure. More public recognition and financial help are essential if the Church's contribution to rural life is to continue to be strengthened and to grow, freed from what can be a preoccupying concern with maintenance. We would rather be in the business of mission and community building.

Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, along with every other noble Lord who is taking part in this debate. Without entering upon the slippery slope of everyone congratulating the maiden speaker—that is much deplored in your Lordships' House—I must say how much I welcome the arrival in the House of another Baron Beaumont. In my rather prejudiced view, we cannot have too many Baron Beaumonts in this House. The arrival of the noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk, as Baron Beaumont is more than welcome.
	Any serious discussion of the countryside is about agriculture. We have now had the opportunity to talk about it on two separate days in the past three days. I take it that few of us want to see a countryside of theme parks and second homes.
	The Green Party is not a party of yokels, in spite of its name. Indeed, one of my problems as its spokesman for agriculture is finding enough people with agricultural knowledge. However, we care passionately about the countryside. Today, I received an e-mail from a very rural part of Derbyshire—from a Conservative constituency—where a rather distinguished gentleman wishes to start a branch of the Green Party, having discovered that most of the people in his village voted Labour in the past but no longer wish to do so.
	The real bugbear to the whole question of agriculture is free trade. Free trade is a con trick imposed by politicians who want to buy urban votes for cheap food at the expense of agricultural incomes and the environment. It has succeeded as a con trick. As the noble Lord, Lord Desai, said on Tuesday, perhaps food is so cheap now that we cannot be bothered to think about the problems it causes. The noble Earl, Lord Selborne, said in the same debate that the objectives of the CAP are to provide a decent living for those in the country and food security but it fails to do either.
	We appear to have abandoned the idea of food security. That is a grave error. Many noble Lords, like me, remember when that mattered. Looking around the world today, I am far from betting heavily on its not being needed again. If we have protection for agriculture, we could have a decent, populous, environmentally secure countryside. We would also have, I admit, more expensive food, but that expense would have preserved the British countryside. Against that, we will be told that we would be harming the poor. Governments always use the fact that they refuse to introduce policies to narrow the gap between the rich and the poor to avoid doing other desirable things. They go on to say that what I am suggesting would hurt the third world. I categorically deny that. It is not true; if I had sufficient time, which I have not, I could prove that.
	Meanwhile, once again, I urge a real determination to tackle the World Trade Organisation. Until then, I look forward with gloom to the continuing decline of the countryside because I do not believe that the suggestions that will be and have been made in your Lordships' House today will really do much good at all. We need a revival of agriculture. The suggestions being made about the improvement of the countryside do not go far enough to do anything serious about that.

Lord Haskins: My Lords, I must declare an interest as the son of a farmer, as a retired farmer and as the father of two farmers: one in Yorkshire and one in County Wicklow. Both of them, I am rather hesitant to say, are making a profit, and both of them are rather keen to expand their businesses.
	I have spent much of the past two years wandering around the British and European countryside, examining how we recovered from foot and mouth disease, how European farming can deal with CAP reform and how that great department, DEFRA, supplies its customers. My reflection is that, generally, the countryside is adapting much better than it thinks to rapid changes in farming, to the growing environmental agenda and to the overall challenges of a dynamic modern society.
	The British countryside is much more economically diverse and successful than it is prepared to admit. Most farms—more than half—now benefit substantially from non-farming income. Wives and children, better educated than their parents, find alternative jobs in nearby towns. Many of today's liberated farmers' wives prefer to do another job, rather than be stuck alongside their husbands at the back end of a cow for all their lives.
	Rural tourism is booming. The "half-term, four-day break" phenomenon is doing wonders for tourism in the countryside. Farm buildings are being increasingly adapted for other business purposes, despite the planners. The Yorkshire farmer's wife who has built a big business flogging knickers on the Internet is not on her own. All of those initiatives are welcome and need to be encouraged. The planners and romantic dinosaurs must not unnecessarily resist progress.
	Farming itself is now recovering well after several difficult years. The doomsters who forecast that foot and mouth disease would be a death blow have been proven totally wrong. The massive—probably excessive—compensation that was handed out by the Government clearly helped, as did the strength of livestock prices, which was a consequence of the disease.
	Farm prices have recovered substantially in most sections, thanks to the weaker pound against the euro and stronger global prices, although the strong euro against the dollar is creating problems. The dairy industry is also experiencing its own problems. Lower interest rates have helped a heavily borrowed industry. British farming has greatly improved its competitiveness. At last, British farmers are learning to co-operate with each other. They are joining together to strengthen their buying power and making much better use of their assets through sharing and contracting. They are also managing their businesses better. There is more intelligent and more sparing use of chemicals and pesticides. They are concentrating on profit rather than yield; learning that good animal welfare is also good business; and managing bigger herds and more hectares in a responsible way.
	When British wheat—Yorkshire wheat—is exported to New York and New South Wales, as happened last winter, one realises how much more competitive many British farmers have now become. Labour shortage is one of the greatest problems facing the industry if one is a dairy person, or growing fruit and vegetables, or trying to pick flowers. Finally, land prices remain strong, enabling those farmers who want to retire in comfort, to make selective disposals for development and to borrow with confidence. However, that does not of course apply to tenant farmers.
	British farmers, however, like the rest of British industry, will benefit from the stability of participation in the European single currency. I believe that the Chancellor's positive Statement on that matter in another place on Monday will take us some way closer to that aspiration.
	I have one final farming point. The capacity to grow niche markets, such as organic and local food markets, is limited. When, as in the case of organic milk, supply runs ahead of demand, the consequences are disastrous for those involved.
	The non-farming rural society continues to thrive. There are rising numbers of urban commuters, who admittedly create problems for others. There has been the remarkable expansion of rural small businesses benefiting from better access to markets through the Web and also from the increasing number of visitors to the countryside.
	Rural public services are in my view also exaggerated. Why are the rural buses so empty? It is because over 90 per cent of the rural population owns cars and most of the rest have obliging car-owning neighbours. Why are rural shops closing down? That is because people in the countryside will not use them. They rather like the once-weekly visit to the nearby town and the supermarket. Why are local pubs in decline? The reason is that drink/drive laws rightly stop people in an inebriated state from driving to and from them.
	My impression is that there are three real problems in the countryside: the lack of affordable housing for young people, which is also an urban problem; the lack of access to entertainment for rural teenagers; and people in remote areas—in what the French call "rural rural areas"—continue to experience problems of social and economic isolation as in the past.
	The Countryside Alliance is, I am afraid, something of a myth. The countryside is as divided as the towns are about hunting; environmentalists clash with farmers; pragmatic environmentalists argue with the evangelists; organic and conventional farmers have their differences; competitive and hobby farmers are at odds with each other; and small farmers resent their larger neighbours. Cowboys and farmers—since the days of Oklahoma—have never got on. There is endless tension between the full-time countryside folk and the commuters and second-homers.
	I say a final word about the Defra review. The Government have created a new department with a radically different and much more complicated remit. It has to apply an agricultural policy in which it itself does not believe; to cope with an avalanche of controversial environmental regulations; to anticipate radical changes in agro-environmental policies; and to handle a remit for rural affairs without really defining what "rural" means.
	My priorities in this review are: first, to improve accountability; to draw clear lines between policy making and delivery. Secondly, as much as possible to devolve delivery to the regions; to get away from top down. Thirdly, to get ready for a huge increase in the environmental agenda. Finally, to provide a better service to the countryside and better value to the taxpayers.

Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, as a farmer I take a somewhat dispassionate view of the countryside. In my boyhood agriculture was recovering from the deep depression of the 1920s and the 1930s. In those days there was a great deal of derelict land. It may not have looked very beautiful but the birds, the bees and the butterflies were having a wonderful time. Today, we are again—despite the noble Lord, Lord Haskins—seeing a period with agriculture descending into depression.
	Set-aside is planned dereliction. I am bound to say that, by observation, rotational set-aside at any rate is not as green as derelict land. In my youth, when I was studying agriculture, the Rothamstead Research Station—I am not sure whether that has survived all the changes in agricultural research and education in the intervening 50 years—used to have a plot of land which it had deliberately neglected for more than 100 years. It finished up as oak forest. If allowed, nature will take care of itself without too much help from us.
	During the in-between period, for the first 30 years when policy was dominated by the need for the security of food supply and for the past 20 years, through advances in communications, we have seen the need for the drive of government policy. As an agricultural industry, we now find ourselves in the position perhaps of a drug addict: we wish we could work without the support of government. The Government are addicted to the same problem and wish they could stop supporting the agricultural industry.
	We have a community of interest but, in a world where support for the agricultural community is general and the environment is so artificial, in fact we cannot escape from it and have to work within those dreadful parameters.
	Agriculture and the countryside are indistinguishable. Strictly, we should not confine our remarks to agriculture today. The problem, however, is the same as that which we faced in the 1930s. That is, there is now insufficient income in the agricultural community to support the countryside in the way we wish to see it kept—in the rather beautiful state in which it is.
	Of course the noble Lord, Lord Haskins, has a point when he talks about the countryside and includes within it all the small rural communities, which are, generally speaking, quite dynamic and include a great deal of small business and so on. However, during the foot and mouth outbreak we saw how quickly they can become damaged when agriculture goes into crisis. That outbreak damaged hugely the agricultural industry, but it damaged quite remarkably the economy of the whole country because of the damage done to all the peripheral industries to which our countryside relates.
	The real question we need to ask ourselves today is: if we cannot rely on agriculture as we know it at present to maintain the country, can we find additional income streams to the rural environment? Tourism is all very well, but there is a limit to the number of bed and breakfasts one can put in the countryside. Letting surplus agricultural cottages is all very well, but one cannot get permission to build any more. So that is also limited.
	The fact is that while tourism brings a great deal of income into the rural community, it does not actually benefit agriculture on which it depends. I am bound to say that the tourist industry would be very reluctant to start to take responsibility for maintenance of the countryside.
	The noble Lord, Lord Palmer, has always been a strong and powerful advocate of biofuels, and particularly bio-diesel. He is right in principle but I have always argued that he is wrong in detail. The brutal fact is that plants are very inefficient converters of the sun's energy. If we are serious about producing green energy from the countryside—and I think we should be, in view of all the concern about global warming—then why not opt for photo-electrics? From the same area of ground we could produce at least 10, possibly 15, times as much energy. With current technical developments one could probably further increase that figure. That green energy would come from nothing.
	However, for that to happen one would need a very different approach to the planning regime because one would effectively be putting land to industrial use. That is one method. Unlike my noble friend Lord Monro of Langholm, I do not think that wind farms are impossible. This is another possible source of income that could be brought to rural areas. I have to inform my noble friend that there is a wind farm within 50 miles of my home that is a tourist attraction. Certainly, the large wind farms that exist in parts of mainland Europe are not that unattractive.
	We have to look for these additional ways to make use of the countryside. If that means a change in the planning regime and a changed psychological approach to the way we view the countryside, so be it; but society is moving on and the countryside must move on with it.

Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, has done well in introducing the debate. He has also done well in the assembling of an enormous number of facts and figures, which must have been a most laborious process—one that I hate but one which he must obviously love.
	I want only to make one point. In introducing it, I must say that the noble Lord, Lord Haskins, is right about what is happening in the countryside. He was perhaps a little too enthusiastic in support of the Government, but, nevertheless, what he said was true: great efforts are going on; new marketing organisations are being set up; new plants are being developed; new machinery is being used; and great efficiency is being shown in many cases.
	It is true that, given a reasonable level of support, farming can advance and thrive, but there are all sorts of snags. The primary producer needs some help because, where free trade has run riot, enormous misery has resulted in the farming population of the central American prairies and of this country. So we have a chance to move on, but the common agricultural policy is all-important.
	More than 25 years ago, I was rapporteur of an agriculture committee considering the problem of olive oil. It was obvious that an enormous amount of money was being wasted and acquired corruptly—especially in Italy. In fact, we worked out that, given that it was made for home consumption as well, every Italian was consuming about a quart of olive oil every day. So a great deal can be accomplished with the CAP.
	Decoupling payment from production is without doubt the answer. That is the only simple solution. Does that decoupling apply to the farmer or the land? There seems to be some doubt. If it applies only to the farmer and is not tied to the land, that is absolute nonsense. I trust and hope that the Minister will assure us that that is not so; and that if it is, he will go to Brussels to try to get that put right.
	There is some hope if we sweep away all those regulations and really decouple to a single payment. On the olive oil, people said, "Ah, but if you pay farmers simply by the tree, they won't pick the olives". As there was a great surplus, I said that that would solve the problem. It will also solve the problem in farming if people receive a single payment. They will look for a simpler, easier way in which to farm, or develop a highly technical advance.
	So I urge the Minister, as soon as we release him from the House, to proceed to Brussels to do his best to get the policy of decoupling pushed through.

Lord Rogan: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, on introducing the debate. Issues relating to the countryside are often not addressed in sufficient depth, and I hope that the debate will highlight some of the serious issues presently affecting the rural community. I cannot declare an interest in farming, but I have an interest in farming. Perhaps I may especially draw attention to what is happening in rural Northern Ireland and, in doing so, make a number of points.
	The past few years have been a time of transition in the rural community, with many factors contributing to changing circumstances. Perhaps the most prominent catalyst behind rural change has been the decline of farming throughout the Kingdom. That is nowhere more apparent than in Northern Ireland, because of the Province's traditional and heavy reliance on agriculture and the fact that farms in the Province are on average much smaller than in mainland Britain.
	Despite the decline in the farming industry, it is still the largest single contributor to Northern Ireland's gross domestic product. Nevertheless, some of our problems are similar to those in other parts of the United Kingdom and thus the same solutions can and should be applied. However, on many occasions the problems are different and require local answers in conjunction with communities.
	It is also true that even in Northern Ireland, which is a relatively small region, there is not one type of rural area. There are different areas with different problems requiring different solutions and responses. One suggestion that I very much support is that of a rural White Paper. England had such a paper some years back and I have heard various organisations, such as the Countryside Alliance, calling for the Government again to set the wheels in motion. Any rural White Paper would need to be as inclusive as possible and bring together a wide range of governmental and non-governmental organisations.
	There are many difficulties in rural Northern Ireland similar to those alluded to by the noble Lord, Lord Palmer: problems with crime in the countryside; the closure of rural post offices; the pressure on rural schools to close; and accessibility of cash machines. That is to name but a few of the issues and factors that collectively put the sustainability of rural communities in grave doubt.
	With the decline in agricultural employment, new initiatives to encourage new business and enterprises have never been more important. Increasingly, Internet access through broadband is becoming an issue that needs serious attention in rural areas of Northern Ireland. The absence of broadband prevents the progress and development of many rural businesses. More government assistance is needed, both practically and financially.
	For instance, I note that earlier this year, Lincolnshire County Council received a grant from the European Union to subsidise broadband services for 3,000 rural businesses in the county. Without such assistance, companies will be understandably both reluctant and financially unable to invest further. Opportunities to create wealth and employment will thus inevitably be lost in rural communities.
	The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, mentioned many transportation matters. In Northern Ireland, there is a growing trend for young people to live in urban areas, while the rural areas become more middle-aged. One factor influencing that is access to transport. Still, today, significant numbers of rural dwellers have no access to private transport, despite the fact that the availability of alternative public transport is limited.
	Organisations such as the Countryside Alliance are playing an increasingly important role in lobbying politicians at the heart of government on issues affecting those who live or work in the countryside, or who enjoy what it has to offer us all. The Rural Development Council will soon be launching its 2003 rural baseline document in Westminster. No doubt it will reveal issues that the Government need to take into account.
	I shall finish with a simple point. Rural people have as much right to equitable access to services as those who live in urban areas. The Government throughout the United Kingdom must continually remind themselves of that, and aim to deliver. The best way to assess the present condition of the countryside is for the Government to produce a White Paper. From knowing exactly how deep are the problems, we can develop and set in place solutions effectively to deal with the wide range of problems.
	There needs to be joined-up government. At present, there is a rural gap between government departments in their work together. A rural White Paper would help government departments to co-operate more effectively and bring rural groups into the equation. I hope that the Government will recognise the existing need and that, as pressure grows for such a government process, they will initiate its development.

Baroness Mallalieu: My Lords, I must declare an interest, first as president of the Countryside Alliance and, secondly, as what is sometimes pejoratively referred to as a hobby farmer. I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, for his superb introduction to the debate. I also much enjoyed listening to my noble friend Lord Haskins.
	The picture that he painted of a land of milk and honey has some resonance with my own experiences. His description of increasing co-operation of people using innovation, particularly in agriculture, and of a growing diversification of non-agricultural jobs in the countryside, is a pattern that I can see.
	However, what was missing from his speech—and I hope that noble Lords will forgive me if I take a moment to say a little about it—was the sense of deep unease, which was fundamentally what brought people in such huge numbers on to the streets of London last year. Most of us recognise that the countryside is undergoing enormous and rapid change. Our concern is that a great national asset will be lost in our generation. There are bound to be changes, but we want to see the retention of things that are precious.
	The countryside is two things. First, it is landscape. Very little of our countryside is true wilderness. The majority of it is managed landscape, which means that its pattern, which most people want to see retained, is dictated by our farming patterns. If our agriculture fails, if it dwindles and dies, that pattern changes and the countryside as we know it goes. So the crisis in agriculture to which many others have referred and which I shall not go into in depth, is far more of a threat to many of us who have no income and no job dependent on agriculture. That affects the essence of the countryside that we care about.
	Beyond that, perhaps even more, the countryside is about people. It is about communities throughout the country and a way of life which, in 2003, is still different, quite separate and distinct from that in the towns. There is a sense of belonging, a sense of having roots, of stability, of continuity, a responsibility for the place in which one lives. They are essentially law-abiding communities that like to work at a different pace and enjoy being part of a community in which people care about their surroundings and their neighbours and look after them when they are needed. In all the changes, that continues to exist in many places—some of them unexpected.
	In the past 20 years one and a half million people have moved into the countryside. Over the same period there has been a rapid decline in rural amenities and services. The family farms of our nation have for generations been the cornerstones of those rural communities. There is no question that their decline is causing a crumbling effect. We have seen the loss of council housing and tied cottages. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Haskins, that the top priority if we are to retain those communities is to tackle local and affordable housing. I have seen the decline in the area where I grew up in Buckinghamshire, and am seeing that now in even more remote places such as Exmoor, where I live part of the time.
	More and more people cannot afford to live in those areas, particularly the young, who move out because the only places they can afford to buy are in the town. Those families that dominated the villages for generations have gone within the space of the past five to 10 years. The small family farms are sold. The houses go to people from outside who can afford to pay the prices, and the agriculture units become larger. Planning regulations can and must be altered to allow for more affordable housing where it will improve the sustainability of those rural communities and benefit those areas. Powerful incentives or legislation to that effect should be at the top of Defra's agenda, as should the removal of restrictions that inhibit the creation of small jobs and enterprises, many of them non-agricultural.
	I echo the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Rogan. If rural areas are left behind in the provision of broadband radio, that will be a blight from which those areas will never recover. The Government have the power to ensure that the telecommunications industry makes proper provision. Do the Government have the will to do so or are they going to wash their hands of it?
	Finally, there is limited legislative time for any government department—and that applies to Defra. Many of us were pleased when that new government department was created and we had high hopes. The department has used its government legislative time so far to bring in an Animal Health Bill, which many of us thought was profoundly insulting, adding insult to injury for many farmers who had suffered during the course of foot and mouth. In another place the Hunting Bill is a travesty of the promise of fair legislation based on evidence and principle. We have seen animal by-products regulations that are impossible for people to abide by. While Ministers are urging an end to hunts, out in the sticks their officials are urging the hunts to keep going, because there are 377 outlets for fallen stock, of which 295 are hunt kennels. The officials are saying "we cannot do without you".
	I beg that in the forthcoming months and years Defra will use its legislative opportunities not to impose more restrictions and regulations on the countryside, but to do things for the countryside that give people from the towns and the country an opportunity to continue to enjoy what is, and we hope will continue to be, a jewel in our nation.

Earl Peel: My Lords, in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, for introducing the debate, I join with others in welcoming and congratulating the noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk, on his maiden speech. Having had the pleasure of knowing him for a long time and being a neighbour of his in Yorkshire—here I declare an interest as an owner of land—it came as no surprise that his first contribution in your Lordships' House was impressive and erudite.
	Agriculture and rural Britain are undergoing a revolution. The high profile disasters of BSE and foot and mouth may have disappeared from our television screens, but profound and long-term changes are taking place and there are huge uncertainties and much hardship. Equally, there is much debate over what the Government could and should be doing to ease the crisis. There is no easy solution. I welcome the report of Sir Don Curry, which has made a considerable contribution to the debate. I also acknowledge that there is a plethora of schemes and initiatives flowing from all the different agencies that exist. However, most lack direction and co-ordination and end up leaving most rural dwellers confused, with a sense that large sums of public money are being wasted. Indeed, many of us are unsure of the direction of DEFRA.
	I was surprised the other day when I saw a letter from Alun Michael describing himself as the Minister for Rural Affairs and Urban Quality of Life. Perhaps, the noble Lord, the Minister, can tell us whether he is responsible for the urban quality of life in this House. So it is not surprising that I welcome the review that has been awarded to the noble Lord, Lord Haskins. He has an interesting job to do.
	However, my real concern is that there appears to be a growing tendency to assume that farming is likely to become an irrelevance to the countryside as it will in time be substituted by other means of employment. That is a highly dangerous notion. Of course there will be fewer farmers, but I cannot accept that in this country we are not capable of producing the majority of food for our own population at a good quality and a fair price, from an agricultural sector charged with the responsibility of developing and maintaining an environment of which we can be proud. I accept that the latter part will continue to require some form of public support.
	However, only farmers can deliver those goals, through working the land, as farming is the bedrock of the rural economy and the vital link between food, the environment and tourism. As my noble friend Lord Monro rightly said, farming has to be profitable.
	So what can the Government do towards ensuring that that objective is met? First, I believe that there is a misconception in some quarters that the majority of consumers would automatically support home-produced products out of loyalty. The truth is that the larger retailers will continue to source their food from the cheapest suppliers, often from abroad. It therefore seems farcical that our farmers are being subjected to a range of rigorous animal welfare and environmental regulations, admirable though those may be, only to see imports flooding into this country which are not subjected to the same conditions as those placed on our producers, who are then being undercut. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, that the Government should seek at the very least to ensure that no new legislation on production standards is introduced unless it is implemented throughout the whole of the European Union.
	So, accepting that profound changes are taking place, clearly there is a need to create alternative jobs. That must remain an essential part of any change. It is to that end that I was immensely impressed when I was recently introduced to the Rural Revival Initiative. Conceived by His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales and implemented by his Prince's Trust, there are three strands to the scheme. The one I looked at is called Dale and is supported largely by the Countryside Agency and Yorkshire Forward, which is our local regional development agency. It is designed to create employment in the Yorkshire Dales region. Managed by the admirable Jill Robinson and started in 1999, it has created 70 new businesses. It is, I believe, a model of what can be achieved given the right structure, advice and, above all, motivation. However, I was particularly struck by one thing: despite an 87 per cent success rate, the local banks had shown a hugely disappointing reluctance to participate through the provision of loans or borrowing facilities.
	That unhappy state of affairs is heard of far too often as the traditional role of a local bank manager—and his close personal link with his clientele—diminishes to a point where in many cases he no longer appears to have even a name. As banks close, the vital link between the customer and local financial services becomes ever weaker. Rigid systems governed by electronic programmes appear to make no allowance for personal circumstances and the banks are now seen by many as more interested in selling pensions and life assurance schemes than in producing the vital services that have served local communities so admirably in the past. I believe that it is incumbent on the banking sector as well as the public sector to take forward this entrepreneurial spirit and to play their part once again in rural Britain.

Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Palmer for giving your Lordships the opportunity to speak on some of the vital issues surrounding the countryside. My noble friend has spoken with passion. I hope that the Minister will be able to give some hope on matters that must have an answer. I must declare an interest. I live in the countryside. I was brought up in the countryside. I have a farm with sheep and ponies and a small riding centre.
	I revert to the debate on horse passports which we had on Monday 2nd June, when the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said that there may be a particular problem with elderly horses. Does he agree that it is possible that some people might turn old horses out and leave them on common ground rather than get a passport? Would it not be possible to exempt old horses above, say, 20 years if the owners signed a declaration stating that they were not being moved from home? If the horses were sold, they would then require a passport.
	Will the Minister also give an answer about fallen stock? Some hunt kennels will not collect. Others do not take sheep because hounds could get a taste for it. So, with no disposal unit or collection service in the vicinity, what are we to do in the rural areas? I agreed to support a scheme but have heard nothing to date. Will the Minister extend on-farm burial until at least September? Something workable might be in place by then—otherwise what is going to happen? What is to happen to dogs and cats? Until now we have buried them in a woodland garden that is nowhere near water. There has been a dog cemetery there for years. What is to happen to deer, foxes and badgers and the endless rabbits which die of myxomatosis by the hundreds?
	A few weeks ago I had a debate on human tuberculosis. There is a global partnership to battle against the growing, deadly international public health threat of multi-drug resistant TB. The Farmers Guardian of 6th June stated:
	"The Government must bite the bullet and get on with the job of fighting TB in Britain to protect the welfare of cattle and badgers".
	May I ask the Minister what is the progress of the bovine TB vaccine? If dead badgers are found and cannot be buried, they could be dumped on other farms, with the risk of spreading TB.
	It is true that the perception and fear of crime in rural areas is very real and is growing. There has been much concern about the lack of visibility of the police and a feeling of remoteness from police services as traditional stations have been closed. The police station at Masham, where I live, is going to be taken over by local veterinarians. A few weeks ago, 19 saddles were stolen from the riding centre on my farm. The tack room was doubled-locked and alarmed. It happened at lunchtime in the middle of the day. Several other people's tack was stolen around the same time. The crimes never seem to be solved and the tack is not found. The thieves are very skilful and quick and know just what they want. Small rural riding schools really do have their problems—if it is not crime, it is the cost exacerbated by rates, which livery stables do not have to pay. I wonder whether the Minister can explain that inequality.
	Over the years I have heard of several people living in the country who have become disabled and have not been able to get planning permission to build housing suitable for their disability. The headlines in this week's Darlington & Stockton Times have highlighted the difficulties of a lady with multiple sclerosis who tried to get planning permission for a bungalow on the edge of Gunnerside in the Yorkshire Dales. Disability can strike at any time in many different ways. It is very difficult if country people and their families cannot remain in their home villages because there is no suitable housing. Special consideration should be given to disabled people as long as their new home fits into local surroundings.
	In Yorkshire many people feel that the administrative burden of government regulations on farmers and the low returns that farming is generating are driving away the next generation of farmers needed to maintain viable and environmentally important areas which are best managed by individuals rather than by government bodies. Therefore, government should aim to reduce those burdens and increase incentives.

Lord Chorley: My Lords, I, too, add my thanks to my noble friend Lord Palmer for initiating this debate so knowledgeably and comprehensively. The long speakers' list is testimony to its importance.
	I should like to make two rather different points, the first of which has to do with the rate at which we are using up our countryside by building on it. The second concerns our upland areas which lie on the margin of cultivation, but which have recreational and nature conservation importance.
	My starting point is the recent Countryside Agency's report, The State of the Countryside 2020 and its remarks that
	"at least 4.2 million new homes will be needed in England over the next two decades—equivalent to building a city the size of greater London".
	The report asks:
	"Where will these houses be built, and how many will be in the countryside?".
	It refers to Government policy to encourage 60 per cent of new build to be on brownfield sites. My noble friend Lord Palmer referred to that. So far the Government have managed to achieve that figure—indeed, to exceed it. That is good, but 60 per cent is not enough. We cannot go on using up our incomparable countryside in this profligate way. Surely we should set the target at least at 75 per cent. That is particularly relevant in the South-East.
	It puzzles me that in England and Wales we have one of the highest population densities in Europe. Yet, we have the lowest housing densities. I do not know why this should be, but if we cannot cure ourselves we will eventually turn the South-East into a vast housing estate. Do I exaggerate? No. One need only look at a map of the south-east of England 100 years ago to see what an awful mess we have made.
	The future of our countryside must in the first instance lie in the renaissance of our cities. We need policies that mean that people will want to live in our cities. We have been shown the way forward. I refer, of course, to the 1998 report of the Rogers Committee, which showed us with real expertise and authority the way forward. The question is whether we are doing enough to carry forward his vision.
	I turn now to my second theme—from suburban England to our wild uplands. My remarks are in some measure derived from a seminar organised by the Royal Geographical Society on "Sustainable Futures for the British Uplands". The key theme is the inter-dependence of upland agriculture, tourism and landscape conservation—a point that has already been made. The okay phrase is, I understand, "multi-functional landscapes".
	That inter-dependence was starkly emphasised by the FMD disaster, which for a period of months brought tourism in the Lake District to its knees. In short, the wider economies of those uplands—tourism employs far more people than farming—depend on the well-being of farming. As is well known, upland farming is barely economic and it is widely accepted that the production-based subsidy systems were seriously damaging our landscapes through overstocking. Other support systems were required.
	Some years ago the National Trust, whose chairman I then was, started experimenting in north Wales with whole farm management plans. Subsequently the Curry report and one by the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution set out the ingredients for this sort of environmental farm management.
	More recently the trust gave evidence to the European Sub-Committee of the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, as did others, on that approach. So it is gratifying to read of their enthusiastic endorsement, and to see that in a wider sense a new approach is bit by bit getting under way in the CAP reforms—although I keep my fingers crossed. In that Connection, I listened with interest to the debate yesterday.
	We have come quite a long way in the past 10 years. But we still have a long way to go. The speech of the noble Lord, Lord Haskins, in that connection was very interesting. My information from the Lake District bears out much of what he says. We have to think on a wider canvass than just agriculture. The excellent Curry report showed us the way forward.
	I shall end by mentioning briefly some practical examples from the Lake District. First, I refer to the promotion of Herdwick wool—the traditional background to Lake District farming. In recent years farmers have been burning the fleeces because it is more costly to transport the fleece to the Wool Board than the price they receive. By attacking the wool supply chain the trust's project office is now able to get a price of 50p a kilo—still less than the shearing cost—for the members of the Herdwick farmers' co-operative. That added value has different sources, including a local Kendal firm that makes Herdwick carpets. We have one in our flat, and it is very hard-wearing.
	Another project is the development of high quality Herdwick meat products. Again, these are projects to diversify from tourism and agriculture by converting redundant farm buildings into light industrial or service uses. I could go on, but, as my time is up, I shall stop at this point.

Lord Joffe: My Lords, I, too, express my appreciation to my noble friend Lord Palmer on his impressive and knowledgeable introduction to this important debate.
	I am fortunate to live just one mile away from the Ridgeway national trail. I wish to draw the attention of the House to recent and disturbing developments on this ancient path. The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, has already touched on the protection of nature trails. I support what he said, but wish to expand on it.
	As your Lordships may be aware, the Ridgeway is regarded as the oldest path in Britain, with a history of use by man going book more than 6,000 years. This makes it older than any building in this country—indeed much older than the Pyramids. It links numerous sites, such as a fine series of iron age hill forts, the great stone circles of Avebury, the oldest white horse in the country at Uffington and the huge and mysterious Silbury Hill. It crosses some of the best scenery in the south of England. It is rich in flora and fauna, and it should provide a wonderful and easily accessible leisure amenity for millions of people. It is one of only 12 national trails in Britain, and it runs through two areas of outstanding natural beauty.
	However, the Ridgeway is currently facing the biggest threat in its long history. The threat comes from the rapidly increasing number of 4x4 motor vehicles and off-road motor bikes that are using it as a playground. They are disturbing the quiet enjoyment of the countryside for the walkers, cyclists and horse riders who make up 95 per cent of the users of the Ridgeway. They are destroying the surface of this ancient path, turning it into a deep and unpleasant sea of mud in wet weather. In the summer this sets into a series of ankle-twisting ruts, which are dangerous to anyone on foot, pedal cycle or horse. They create pollution and are driving away the local wildlife for what should be a precious bio-diversity reservoir in this intensely farmed part of the country.
	If this threat continues, there will not be a Ridgeway for future generations of country lovers to enjoy. Your Lordships may ask why motor vehicles are allowed on this national trail. The reason is that until recently our law provided that if it could be proved that horse-drawn traffic once used a particular route, it could now be used by motor vehicles. Until about 20 years ago, this did not matter too much as few motor vehicles ever used it. However, with the recent explosion in the numbers of off-road vehicles, there is now an enthusiastic sport of "green laning"—driving such vehicles down the ancient green lanes of Britain. At a time when we are quite rightly to curb motor vehicles in our major urban areas, we appear to be encouraging them to drive deeper and deeper into our countryside.
	The problem is not confined to the Ridgeway. It is manifesting itself all over the country, with areas of the Lake District, Peak District and the Yorkshire Dales being badly affected. We live in a small island and it is vital that we take steps to protect our countryside from the ravages of the internal combustion engine before it is too late.
	It is ironic that the websites of 4x4 clubs in mainland Europe are exhorting their members to come and drive the Ridgeway and other British green lanes—something that they are not allowed to do in their own countries.
	A good parallel might be the action that has been taken to protect the centres of some of our ancient towns and cities from the ravages of motor traffic. For example, the rights of drivers to use roads near York Minster have been removed to preserve and protect that magnificent building for the benefit of future generations. What is the difference in the case of the Ridgeway, which is an even older part of our heritage?
	The Government are to be congratulated on passing the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. The Act introduces the new category of a restricted byway, which is not accessible to motor vehicles. When the final parts of that Act come into effect, it is hoped later this year, some parts of the Ridgeway will become restricted byways.
	I hope that the Minister will not mind if I ask him three questions on this single issue. Can he confirm that from that date motor vehicles will be banned from those sections of the Ridgeway? Will the Minister consider urging local authorities to use their new powers under the Act to ban motor vehicles from the whole of the Ridgeway on the grounds of conserving natural beauty and protecting the geological features of the trail? Will he consider using his powers under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 to ban motor vehicles from the Ridgeway?
	It is clear that the legal means are in place to protect the Ridgeway and other precious green lanes in our country from this increasing threat. We need to act quickly and I urge the Minister to take the lead before it is too late.

Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, as on previous occasions when the countryside has been debated in your Lordships' House, it is right that I declare an interest as chairman of a number of family companies concerned with land ownership, forestry, farming, construction, mineral extraction, tourism and National Hunt racing. I have a personal stake in these enterprises whose assets for the most part are in Cumbria. Like other noble Lords who have spoken, I, too, express my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, for his elegant and informed introduction to this debate.
	Some months ago at a public hearing in a committee room upstairs, I asked the Europe Minister, Mr Denis MacShane, whether we could look to the Government for a more robust approach to CAP reform. In his reply, Mr MacShane said,
	"I was very interested in the Countryside Alliance march which was an extraordinary manifestation on the streets of London and one of the very clear demands, it seemed to me, was for more agricultural support in a bigger CAP rather than a smaller one".
	It had crossed my mind to taunt the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, with his colleague's gross misinterpretation of the countryside march. I decided against it, having chanced to hear him wind up for the Government in yesterday's debate introduced by my noble friend Lord Selborne on the mid-term review. The Minister in his speech, as I remember it, said that nearly everyone now, including leaders of farming organisations, understood the compelling need for change. Indeed, I felt that the Minister, without underestimating the problems, conveyed an unambiguous commitment to support the proposed fiscal reforms. If I have understood him correctly, I warmly congratulate him; and if I have misunderstood him, I congratulate him on having so comprehensively fooled me.
	Hugely important as agriculture is, I shall concentrate today on the non-agricultural aspect of the countryside. The twin obstacles to growth and investment in Britain's countryside are taxation and regulation. In their different ways, both of them bear down disproportionately in rural areas. Council taxes are high as a direct result, we are told, of the Government's nakedly political decision to boost rate support in urban areas at the expense of the shire counties. In Cumbria, our latest rise is 13.5 per cent. Fuel tax is, for obvious reasons, disproportionately high in the countryside and the latest hike in national insurance is, of course, simply a tax on jobs.
	On regulation, I do not give up on the Better Regulation Task Force. It appears to be approaching its job with some vigour. However, the sheer scale of its task is awesome. One worries also that the minute such beasts become effective to the point of discomforting the Government, devices are found to bring them to heel. I wish that task force well.
	The trouble with regulation is that there appears to be a built-in increment: the old problem of enforcers needing to justify their existence. I want to illustrate my position based on my own experience. I employ 250 people, rising to almost one third again in the summer. In this financial year and last, we spent £30,000 in bringing up to date systems to comply with human resources and health and safety statutory requirements and best practice. The annual cost, I estimate at today's prices, will be between £15,000 and £20,000. In the past two years, production managers have had to devote on average 12 per cent of their time to handling new regulation, which is a damaging distraction from their productive time. Reflecting the abject condition of public services, I have concluded that the people I employ need health protection that the state should offer but manifestly fails to provide. Accordingly, at our own cost, we have felt compelled to buy in medical advice and back-up.
	If I try to measure improvements in our duty of care to our workforce since the arrival of this avalanche of regulation, I would be bound to admit some gains. It would be extraordinary if there were not. Such gains, I have to say, could have been achieved at a fraction of the cost. And there are losses. In the slate quarries that we run, it is my judgment that the HSE requirements have a tendency to impose huge costs and actually reduce levels of safety. This is partly because safety inspectors cannot possibly be expected to understand the geological complexities of something unusual like a slate quarry, especially as no two are remotely alike. Furthermore, the hugely bureaucratic nature of the new world of health and safety has gone a long way to destroy the safety culture which has traditionally been such a feature among workforces operating in naturally hazardous environments.
	The remedy, it seems to me, is that I, the employer, should take greater responsibility for the people I employ. I should submit safety cases for the inspector's approval and then be held to account for their delivery. How can the agencies of the state pretend to understand how to make a quarry safe? The trouble with my solution is, of course, that armies of inspectors would find themselves without a job. The way we are going is ever more safety regulation and an ever diminishing culture of common-sense safety in the workplace. And it is that common-sense element, I contend, which to a large extent prevents accidents at work and, in turn, saves lives.
	In the past few weeks, my companies have marketed, organised and run six days of events in Cumbria which have attracted some 80,000 visitors. They come from town and country and I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Clark of Windermere, that it is dangerous to distinguish between the two. Trade stands took business—much of it local—I am told into the many hundreds of thousands of pounds and the economic activity generated runs into millions.
	Although these are high-risk, weather-dependent activities, I do not pretend to be doing this for the public good. My trustees, however, have increasing grounds for saying that that is exactly what we are doing—and here is the rub. We are currently having to review what amounts locally to substantial capital projects, and if we feel compelled to cancel or defer investments it will be because, and only because, margins are continuously eroded and risks increased through this Government's attrition of tax and regulation.

The Earl of Liverpool: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, for initiating this timely debate on the British countryside. I want also to say how much I enjoyed the speech of the noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk. I agreed wholeheartedly with everything he had to say. I know that I speak for the whole House in saying how much we look forward to hearing from him on many future occasions.
	The noble Lord, Lord Palmer, covered many important topics in his opening speech. This is proving to be a wide-ranging debate. One of the subjects he raised was biofuels. In the time available to me, I want to concentrate on that subject and speak briefly about sustainable development. As the noble Lord reminded us, he is president of British Biofuels and Oils, so I hope that he will approve.
	The world's resources of fossil fuels are fast depleting. Oil reserves will have been largely exhausted within a generation. Quite apart from anything else, this makes us too dependent on other parts of the world and potentially a hostage to fortune. I am not saying that the whole answer to this lies in biofuels, but surely part of it does. Obvious benefits could accrue from such fuels. They could reinvigorate the farming industry and, importantly, the farming communities. They would be a sustainable crop and there is an almost infinite continuum of resources from which biofuels can be generated.
	For example, if 1 million-odd acres of set-aside land was planted with Miscanthus Sacchariflorus, and assuming that produced a median-dry matter production of six tonnes per acre per year, that could be converted to approximately 3 million tonnes of oil equivalent biofuel. That is equivalent to nearly 4 per cent of UK annual oil demand. As set-aside land represents only 3 per cent of this country's land within agricultural holdings, we begin to see what an enormous contribution biofuels could make. Another enormous advantage of these fuels is that, unlike fossil fuels, they have a negligible effect on climate change.
	Therefore, there are any number of good reasons for increasing research funding in this area. But, sadly, investment by the Government is at a very low ebb. Research funded by Defra has yet again been cut. I should like to quote briefly from the introduction of the Institute of Biology's paper of January this year entitled Fuelling the future 3, in which Jonathan Cowie, head of science policy, stated:
	"if the Government has a policy to develop greenhouse friendly energy resources as well as a policy to develop alternative crops to food crops to invigorate the rural economy, then R&D investment for such policy-driven research is required. Furthermore cuts to DEFRA R&D undermine recent increases in investment in BBSRC research."
	There is an urgent need to set in place demonstration projects which show that the use of existing technology can forge a market in which potential users are assured of a reliable and timely supply of bioenergy. I hope that the Minister can give the House some encouragement that things are about to change for the better.
	Sustainable development can apply as much in the country as in the towns. What I mean by sustainable development is looking at ways of making the buildings we put up as independent of conventional resources as possible. Solar power can now be retrieved from special slates which to all intents and purposes look almost indistinguishable from Welsh slates. The capture of grey water is easily achieved, and there are companies now making systems to hold this water from road surfaces.
	Wind power is a controversial subject, because of the size and scale of wind turbines seen on hills in various parts of the country, but much smaller and more discreet—in both size and noise—wind generators, some with contra-rotating blades, can be used to good effect by individual households.
	I hope that the Government can assure me that they are seized of the importance of these and other technologies, and that they can give encouragement to developers to adopt as many eco-friendly systems as possible. This would greatly reduce our dependence on fossil fuels over time. Not only would that help with our commitment under the Kyoto summit agreement, but, with luck, it should reduce the need to build more nuclear power stations, which, because of their build and running costs and the nuclear waste problems they create, will for ever be dangerous white elephants.

The Earl of Erroll: My Lords, I must apologise, but because of the Statement I have had to scrub my speech. It would have endorsed and expanded upon the excellent maiden speech of the noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk.

Lord Judd: My Lords, like other noble Lords, I am deeply grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, for the opportunity to debate these issues this evening. We were all very impressed by his introduction to the debate.
	I should declare an interest. I live in the countryside, in the Lake District National Park. I am a vice-president of the Council of National Parks, and I am a member of the North-West Regional Committee of the National Trust.
	In his introduction, the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, dwelt mainly on agriculture, as have other noble Lords. If we are concerned with agriculture, what is happening in Brussels at the moment is of crucial significance. We have heard in the debate that the majority of people in Britain want to see the countryside preserved. Farmers and farming are central to the preservation of the countryside. If the countryside is to be preserved, there has to be an income for the farmers, as has been made very clear in the debate. Part of that income, I have become convinced, will come from giving farmers a distinguished and important role in managing the environment. That should receive positive and practical support from what comes out of Brussels in the next few days.
	My noble friend Lord Clark of Windermere spoke of the interdependence of urban and rural communities. I totally endorse what he said. I would only add to his illustrations the very basic reality that the urban communities want the recreation of the countryside, but those in the countryside want the wealth produced in urban areas to sustain that countryside. That is a very basic economic interdependence.
	I was worried two years ago when it seemed to me that we were drifting into a dangerous and stupid confrontation between urban and countryside communities. That must be resisted at all costs.
	The Countryside Agency is to be commended on some useful analysis which it has put at our disposal in recent times. Let us just look at some of the facts of which it has reminded us.
	First, 28.5 per cent of the population live in England's rural districts. Between 1981 and 2000 there was a 12 per cent growth in that population, compared with only a 2 per cent growth in urban areas.
	Next, if we look at the quality of life, we see that 46 per cent of the population in rural areas are involved in local organisations, compared with only 32 per cent in urban areas. Forty two per cent of people living in the countryside are highly interactive with their neighbours, compared with only 28 per cent in urban society.
	The health record of the rural communities is better than that of urban communities. The educational achievements of children in education in rural areas are significantly better than those of children in urban areas taken as a whole.
	Whatever the difficulties—and I was very sorry to hear about them—encountered by the brother of the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, in retrieving his motor cycle with the assistance of the police, it must be recognised that for those living in the countryside there is an approximately 50 per cent smaller likelihood of burglary or violent crime than for those living in urban areas.
	But there are, of course, big challenges. We have heard again in this debate about the need for affordable housing, the high cost of housing, the impact of all this on the young and the less well-off. I have seen in the valley in which I live, the Lorton valley in North Cumbria, some very imaginative work by a housing association. Far from damaging the environment, the building of a small number of affordable houses enhanced the environment, because it was done in keeping with the whole style and atmosphere of the valley.
	There is a need for support for rural businesses and greater access to information technology and broadband. If my noble friend Lord Haskins will forgive me, I wish that in his lively journeys through Britain and Europe he had been able to spend more time with the elderly and infirm, because one of the big challenges in the rural areas is the disappearance of post offices, banks, cashpoints, transport and other services for the elderly, infirm and vulnerable. Of course, that is not an issue limited to the countryside; it exists in urban areas too. But we should face the fact that it is an issue in the countryside.
	I commend my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport, because he has asked us very bluntly whether we want to disappear under a sea of asphalt or whether we want to have a quality of life which resists the advance of asphalt. In the rural areas, as much as in urban areas, we have to look at road pricing. Already in the national parks we see in the targeted road programme that the Department for Transport has produced road schemes which strike at the very purposes of the national parks. I should like to be reassured by my noble friend the Minister this evening that there is greater liaison between Defra and the Department for Transport on the issue of the national parks and the countryside in general with regard to road building and its adverse effects.
	My noble friend Lord Haskins referred to "romantic dinosaurs". I urge my noble friend, who is also a personal friend and for whom I have great regard, to be a little careful with his language in this respect.
	I ask this: where would civilisation have been without imaginative romanticism? It is the ability to think, to imagine and to have vision that carries society forward. As we come up to the review of national parks, let us not tinker in management terms with it. Let us use our vision to ask: what do we want our children to inherit? Do we want them to be able to enjoy open spaces, to see the Milky Way by curbing the intrusion of light pollution? Or do we want to surrender ourselves to the mercenary, materialist advance of a rather dull suburbia across the whole land?
	Let us bring back some vision, commitment and passion to our fight for the kind of decent, balanced, British society we want to see. In that, the countryside will have an absolutely invaluable and irreplaceable place.

The Earl of Arran: My Lords, although what I am about to say bears some similarity to the maiden speech of the noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk—perhaps I may say that it was an excellent speech—I hope that noble Lords will forgive me if I do not scrub my remarks. I wish to continue with my few words because I return to the subject of agriculture, but particularly and specifically agriculture in the West Country.
	The countryside is so many things to so many people and used in a myriad of different ways, all of which ought to exist in harmony. But in spite of what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Clark of Windermere, and my noble friend Lord Cavendish of Furness, there seems to be a division between people who make their living from farming and animals and those who do not. So many new houses in villages are suburban in type and their owners have little connection with the working countryside around them. They work mostly in towns and are better off than their farming neighbours. But those who work with animals, whether farm animals or horses, are on the receiving end of an increasing amount of hostility, both in terms of general tolerance and new legislation. They are not alone in facing an extraordinary raft of petty bureaucracy and obstructive legislation and, given their low incomes and attacks on traditional pursuits, it is not surprising that some believe that society is out to get them.
	I intend to concentrate on farming in the South West, from whence I come, where my wife is the farmer and, indeed, where the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford married us. The farmers there are pulling their industry up by their bootstraps, thanks to a combination of the weakening of the pound against the euro and their own resilience and initiative.
	Farm incomes have improved, albeit from the disastrous to the merely diabolical, and confidence has been seeping back. But that confidence is fragile and springs from the strong support which the farming community has received from consumers in the region, manifested in the remarkable growth in demand for high quality local food rather than from any perceived change in the Government's policy for, or attitude towards, the countryside.
	The recovery, modest as it is, is being taken forward despite the perceived role of the Government, not because of it. That may seem a harsh thing to say in the light of the sustainable farming and food strategy, born of Sir Donald Curry's report, which contains many good things. Nevertheless, I am afraid to say that it is true. The level not merely of confidence in this Government among the farming community, but also that of trust, remains at rock bottom.
	For that, Ministers have only themselves to blame. This all goes back to the formation of Defra two years ago. The omission of any reference to agriculture in the name of the department came across to the farming community as a calculated snub, and everything that has happened subsequently has served to confirm that initial impression.
	Other than the usual cheap shots at the common agricultural policy, Ministers never talk about agriculture if they can possibly avoid it. They will talk about diversification, or local food, or access, or the environment or farm tourism until the cows come home. But never, never do you hear them even acknowledging, let alone championing, the core function of agriculture, which is to produce over two-thirds of the nation's food. It is almost as if they are ashamed of being responsible for food production, that they would rather that we allowed our food markets to be captured by imports so that the countryside could be spared the dirty business of growing food and turned over entirely to butterflies, birds, tourists and urban refugees.
	That may be an unfair characterisation of ministerial attitudes, but I can assure noble Lords that that is how it comes across to the farmers in my part of north Devon, who feel themselves and the food which they produce regarded as a rather inconvenient by-product of countryside management programmes.
	Far too much of the funds desperately needed for the revitalisation of the rural economy is instead being wasted in what I am told is the tortuous and infinitely frustrating process of applying for grants of one kind or another. Even ventures that are launched with the full blessing of Defra and the RDA, such as our regional food industry development agency, South West Food and Drink, are having to devote weeks of time and thousands of pounds to jumping through bureaucratic hoops and being bounced from one government agency to another like a ball-bearing in a pinball machine.
	If the Government really want to facilitate and encourage the development of the rural economy—and I have no reason to suppose that they do not—then they need to smooth the way for industry-led projects which can contribute to that process rather than putting endless bureaucratic obstacles in its path. If Ministers want to encourage the recovery in farming, they could do no better than to start at least to recognise the importance and value of food production, both in its own right as a vital economic activity and in the way it underpins so much else of the rural economy, rural society and the rural environment.

Lord Moran: I thank my noble friend Lord Palmer for introducing this debate and for his admirable speech. I want to say a brief word, not about farming, but about the look of the countryside. Thirty years ago, one of our leading poets wrote:
	"I thought it would last my time—
	The sense that, beyond the town,
	There would always be fields and farms . . .
	For the first time I feel somehow
	That it isn't going to last,
	That before I snuff it, the whole
	Boiling will be bricked in . . .
	And that will be England gone".
	Is the outlook today still as sombre as it then appeared to Philip Larkin and if so, is there anything we can do about it?
	We all know that large tracts of the country have been obliterated by expanding towns, motorways, factories and the cutting down of woodlands in both world wars. We see the inexorable spread of housing, driven by the exceptional density of our population and our record number of divorces, each of which usually results in two households in the place of one. But it is sad to see the Government bullying reluctant local authorities to build hundreds of thousands of houses in unspoilt country.
	Amazingly, a fair amount of unspoilt country survives. If you look down from an aircraft, it is surprising how much is still green and yet to be built over. In a small, overcrowded island like ours, we ought to try to pass on at least some of it unspoilt for future generations.
	In three or four minutes I can make only a few specific suggestions. Could we not levy a tax on housing built on green fields and offer tax advantages to those who build factories and houses on brownfield sites in cities and towns? Could we press on with research to discover truly cost-effective white street and road lights, and then replace all the glaring yellow sodium lights? Even if it is impracticable to do much about high-voltage lines, could we not bury intermediate voltage and telephone lines, especially in areas of high landscape value?
	Could we bring an end to the siting of heavily subsidised wind turbines standing up to 400 feet high in unspoilt hill areas where they can be seen for miles, destroying the sense of remoteness and giving an industrial aspect to parts of the country where it has no place? We already have over 1,000 turbines, one third of them in Wales, but the amount of electricity they produce is insignificant and their output is unreliable and unpredictable. Should we not face the fact that wind power is neither economic nor effective and abandon it?
	Can we press the Government and local authorities to get rid of excessive road signs, advertisements and telecommunications masts; the rural clutter, described by the CPRE as the,
	"often ugly and sometimes unnecessary paraphernalia of an apparently uncaring modern society"?
	Lastly, could we persuade local authorities to clear roadside trees of the ivy that now smothers so many of them?
	Too many of us take for granted the incomparable beauty of our countryside—or what remains of it. We forget just how fragile it is. It has been the inspiration of Shakespeare and Hardy, Constable and Turner. A passionate feeling about the countryside is not confined to a few middle-class enthusiasts. The large numbers who volunteer to do back-breaking physical work on bird reserves, canals or woodlands show how strong this feeling is among the young. Polls have shown that a large majority of our people believe that the countryside is in danger and are dissatisfied with the Government's efforts to protect it.
	What then can we do to preserve what is left? Much has been achieved by voluntary bodies—the National Trust, which saved the Lake District and much of our coasts; the CPRE and CPRW, although, sadly, the RSPB takes little interest in landscape. But only the Government can take really effective action on a national scale. To do this they must give the preservation of our countryside a higher priority. This area of policy has been downgraded. There used to be a Secretary of State for the Environment—and only the environment—sitting in the Cabinet, but no longer. Mr Meacher does his utmost, but he is not a Cabinet Minister. The Government pay lip service to environmental objectives, but in practice do not give them much weight. Great care needs to be taken to ensure that essential development does not damage or destroy too much of our uniquely beautiful countryside and the old cities, towns and villages that have come down to us. This House should use its influence to persuade the Government to do much more to preserve our heritage.

The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, in these farming debates we now rightly recognise the diversity of the countryside and the urgency of finding alternative sources of income. We acknowledge the growing importance of tourism and attractions which add value. The noble Lord, Lord Palmer, has generously allowed me to put in a word for gardens, both public gardens and those open to the public. I declare an interest, since my wife and I are responsible for a garden open to the public in West Dorset. Apart from managing this garden and a lot else, my wife was until recently gardens and parks chairman of the Historic Houses Association.
	Heritage and tourism are high on the Government's agenda, and various grants through English Heritage and local RDAs are now available to attractions in private ownership provided they meet the criteria for public access. Defra's successful Countryside Stewardship Scheme now extends to historic parks and designed landscape of historic properties, thus enhancing the quality of these attractions.
	However, such grants are not directly available to gardens. Gardens are Cinderellas as regards public funding, perhaps because of their dynamic and changing character. Yet every year an estimated 13 million people visit houses and gardens in private ownership nationwide, of whom the number of garden visitors is on the increase, with all the maintenance and wear and tear that such numbers involve.
	The Government might like to consider one or two of the problems facing the owners of these historic gardens. One is that when matching grants are made available, it is the built heritage to which the owners have to give priority. Roofs must come before summer houses or garden features. Whenever capital has to be spent on a leaking roof, the last thing to be repaired will be outdoor paving, stone steps, walls, fountains or grottoes. Yet visitors enjoy these features and soon notice any decay. They are increasingly conscious of standards, thanks in part to the higher levels of maintenance in National Trust gardens.
	According to English Heritage,
	"what makes a site of interest is the survival, quality and interest of its historic structure".
	Yet grants even for gardens on the English Heritage register are hard to come by, and unless some way can be found to protect them, dilapidation is inevitable.
	There is a further problem for owners of gardens, like many other attractions, and that is the securing of alternative sources of revenue, such as a gift shop, plant sales or a cafe besides admissions. The noble Lord, Lord Palmer, touched on that. If a private owner derives any benefit which, according to rating law need not be financial benefit, the income from these sources is liable for non-domestic rate assessment even if there are trading losses on the combined hereditament, as there invariably are because of steep maintenance costs. If an owner appeals, quite apart from legal costs there may be an accumulated deficit over a period of months, even years, until the appeal is determined. To my knowledge, there is no redress through local government or the various countryside agencies. In this situation, government, far from supporting gardens and tourist attractions, is effectively penalising them. I sympathise with much that was said by the noble Lord, Lord Cavendish.
	There can be very few private owners of gardens open to the public who can sustain this level without selling their own assets unless they enjoy very substantial private incomes. It may be fairly argued that some derive some personal benefit; but for many owners these gardens are not private at all. They may be extensive, far from the house, covering many acres; they may be steep and difficult to manage; and they may demand a high level of public service rather than private profit. Very few gardens indeed make a profit.
	As regards maintenance, there is another difference. While major capital repairs come, say, every 10 years, gardens require the same level of expenditure year in and year out. Higher salaries, better equipment and new investment in planting all add to increased running costs and may require additional capital.
	At this time of year there is nothing more breathtaking than the beauty and colour of our English gardens. We take a lot of pride in them, and the gardening industry itself is flourishing. Yet the HHA has warned that without proper support, many future owners of these gardens may allow them to revert to wilderness. The HHA says that that,
	"would be a loss to the heritage of historic gardens, to the community and to tourism in the area, with all the spin-off benefits, not forgetting that it is the accumulation of specific attractions, many of which are loss-making, which draw visitors".
	I know that the Government are well aware of the importance of gardens—I include municipal gardens—and their place in the rural economy; yet not a lot is known about their contribution. Perhaps more could be done through the HHA and other bodies to carry out the necessary research. Meanwhile, I urge the Government to give more consideration to this vital sector of our valuable countryside.

Lord Hoyle: My Lords, perhaps I may also join in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, for introducing this debate. It has been invaluable to all of us. It is important for me to say when I speak in this House that I have always lived in the countryside. Perhaps I may be slightly critical of your Lordships: it always appears to me that when we have a debate on the countryside all the emphasis is put on agriculture. The noble Baroness shakes her head. A lot of the emphasis is placed on agriculture.

Baroness Byford: My Lords, I was shaking my head because the contributions made today have not concentrated solely on agriculture, which I find very helpful.

Lord Hoyle: My Lords, one might say that they have not concentrated as much on agriculture. It is important to the countryside, but there are many other jobs and occupations there. Many people who live in the countryside travel to nearby towns to work.
	The total spent on agriculture of £3.2 billion by the Government is far more than is spent on the whole of manufacturing industry. That is an important point to make. That is not to say that agriculture does not deserve our support. I believe that it needs our help in standing up to the power and actions of the supermarkets. They could buy more British produce and label it far better because it is still very difficult in most supermarkets to find food which has been grown in this country. When he replies to the debate, I should like to hear my noble friend the Minister say that government departments now buy British produce for their canteens and restaurants. The Armed Forces, in particular, should do the same. While the Armed Forces buy quite a lot of beef, what are they doing about buying British lamb, for instance? A good deal more could be done in that direction.
	It is true that most villages need help in relation to post offices, which are still closing. We need to find other ways of attracting people into village post offices. I know that the Government have given this issue a great deal of consideration. Perhaps my noble friend can tell the House what is the current situation. I know from personal experience the difficulty of persuading national banks to remain in villages. Despite making a profit, they seem to ignore the needs of the elderly, the disabled and those who do not have cars. Even though they are making a profit, as I said, they continue to close.
	As to shops and pubs, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Haskins, that in many cases closures are the fault of the people who live in the villages because, first, they do not use the pubs as much as they did in the past and do not make them the centre of the village; and, secondly, they generally do their shopping in supermarkets. The shops need more help from the villagers themselves if they are to be kept from closing.
	We must put pressure on the telecommunication companies to ensure that they take broadband to rural areas as well as to urban areas. In the discussions I have had with them, the emphasis has always been on urban areas—the easy target—rather than on rural areas.
	Affordable housing is essential for people who live in villages. I should like to see more done in that regard. I hope that my noble friend is able to update the House on the Government's plans on that issue.
	Tourism is one of the growth areas in the countryside. In my area, the Commonwealth Games helped to make a wider audience aware of the lovely countryside that surrounds us. The cycling events took place in the Bolton and Chorley rural areas and drew attention to Rivington and other places. This has enabled us to attract many more tourists.
	On the down side, however, many people who come to walk there find that their cars, having been left unattended, are broken into. There is a need to consider the issue of law and order and the policing of rural areas, which in itself is very important.
	The countryside is a haven to both country and town dwellers alike. For all of us—country and town—it is a cause worth preserving

Lord Mancroft: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, for introducing the debate. I echo the closing words of the noble Lord, Lord Hoyle: the countryside is important and we all need to work together to preserve it. It has been an excellent debate so far and will continue to be so as there is a long list of speakers.
	I wish to focus on two points. The crisis in the countryside, about which we have heard a great deal, exists and is important. To a certain extent it is a hidden crisis. The countryside is full of new businesses and has a vibrant housing market and a great deal of new wealth is coming into it. The new businesses and the new wealth are marvellous, but beneath that a crisis exists in local communities which is sometimes unseen. They have problems with housing, as the noble Lord, Lord Hoyle, said, they have severe employment problems and they worry immensely about poor public services.
	Of course the world moves on—we cannot stop that, nor should we try to—and the countryside cannot expect to remain in aspic. In his excellent maiden speech, the noble Duke drew attention to the survey which found that 90 per cent of the British people wanted to keep the countryside as it is. That may be a slightly romantic view but it is, nevertheless, what most people in this country want. We therefore must strive for progress and, at the same time, preserve the best of the past. That is the difficulty we face.
	Agriculture is important. This is not specifically an agricultural debate—perhaps we talk about it rather too much in rural debates, as the noble Lord, Lord Hoyle, said—but we need to understand that agriculture is the canvas on which every other activity in the countryside is painted. If we do not look after the canvas it will be impossible to paint on it.
	The Government are quite rightly keen to promote diversity for farmers and others. Tourism is probably the most important area of diversity. It takes many forms but is probably centred—again as the noble Lord, Lord Hoyle, said—around the beauty of the natural countryside, which is of course preserved by farmers. The fells, the dales, Exmoor, Dartmoor, the Cotswolds, the Norfolk Broads, stately homes—every part of the country has its beauty spots. Indeed, I suspect that the Government's right-to-roam Bill was a rather clumsy attempt to encourage people to enjoy these areas rather more.
	That is all right up to a point, but we must not fall into the trap that London fell into in the 1970s when over-exposure led to a fall in quality and almost killed the goose that laid the golden egg. We need sympathetic management, not too much of it.
	One of the reasons for the success of rural tourism is the natural beauty of the countryside and its wildlife. The noble Lord, Lord Clark, referred to the marvellous reintroduction of ospreys. That is a great example of the kind of work that can be done in the countryside to encourage people to come and see its wildlife.
	But the countryside—both its habitats and the wildlife that lives within it—needs to be conserved. That requires skill and knowledge. Those skills and that knowledge reside mainly within the traditional rural communities—and those communities are in crisis. While the customers must be given what they want, they must not be given it at the risk of destroying that which the customer has come to enjoy. The moorland is a favourite destination of walkers, particularly managed moorland. Such moorland is managed by land owners and keepers for sports. If those land owners cannot manage their moors, the moors will deteriorate, there will be no wildlife and no one will want to visit them.
	The recent report by the Durrell Institute of Conservation and Ecology at the University of Kent on habitat conservation in lowland agricultural England made clear that most existing conservation work in lowland areas will vanish without the incentives of field sports, and that those cannot be replaced by subsidies.
	In the recent dry spell at Easter, a number of land owners wanted to close their moorland, as they have a right to do under the access rules. But they needed the permission of the Peak District National Park Authority and the authority refused to close the moors. Two moors were substantially burnt as a result of the hot, dry weather. Who is going to visit a burnt moor?
	The noble Lord, Lord Palmer, referred to wildlife. Unfortunately, not so many people in England understand that wildlife cannot be left alone; it must be managed very carefully. Many people from the towns and country want to see wildlife but they will not want to go on seeing it if it is not managed properly.
	The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, will be delighted to hear that I do not want to rehearse the hunting debate today, but there are some examples worth considering. Where deerhunting has been stopped on National Trust land, more deer have to be shot. The concentrations of deer are heavier; there are more injured deer; and, because of shooting, they are less visible and the tourists cannot see them. That is to no one's advantage.
	At the other end of the moor, I understand that in the sanctuaries of the League Against Cruel Sports deer have died of tuberculosis. The animals in the red deer herd have been over-concentrated for their welfare, but it has severely affected their management. We must avoid doing that. It is incredibly important that we remind ourselves and the Government that conservation must be the governing factor. If we have to manage populations—and we shall have to do so—we should look after their welfare in the most humane way possible; otherwise there will be nothing left to conserve and look after.

Lord Walpole: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Palmer for initiating the debate although I am not sure that the subject he has asked me to speak on is quite the one I enjoy. I congratulate the noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk, on his maiden speech. It is a pity that his country house in Norfolk belongs to Norwich Union pension fund. His city house in Norwich is a car park but I have an over-mantel from that house which I use as a bedhead.
	I like the British countryside, but I am biased. I have lived in it for most of my life and for the past 40 years have endeavoured to make my little bit more beautiful and environmentally friendly. However, I have noticed that not only in Britain but in large parts of continental Europe the state of the countryside is deteriorating and in many areas has become very scruffy. I think that that is partly due to the lower income in the agricultural and allied sector which has led to less painting and tidying up of premises and less time and labour to keep the countryside clear of rubbish. Fly-tipping is a major problem.
	Motor tyres are a special problem. Under the landfill directive it is no longer possible to put motor tyres, (even, I believe, shredded), into landfill and there are millions of used tyres to dispose of each year. If they are dumped on the roadside verges, it is the responsibility of the local authority to remove them. If they are dumped on private land, it is the responsibility of the landowner to remove them. They cannot be burnt and reputable contractors are very expensive. At Sculthorpe in Norfolk, where thousands of tyres were illegally dumped on an industrial estate, at last the authorities decided that they were not only illegal but also dangerous—a fire hazard. Steps were taken to remove some and divide them into smaller heaps to lessen the serious fire risk. A special grab was brought in to deal with the problem. The first night someone broke into the site to try to steal the grab. However, it was too secure so they set fire to it. Luckily, the tyres did not go up as well.
	We all know about the refrigerator problem, which is now gradually being dealt with. But that does not stop the odd old refrigerator being dumped around the countryside. There is about to be a problem with small electrical and electronic equipment, which under the WEEE Directive will have to be disposed of in a special way. I hope that the Government will foresee the problem before old irons and computers join the fridges in our woods.
	Motor cars, both whole and burnt out, are again a major problem in certain areas. The vehicle end of life directive will cause more problems unless we are fully prepared to deal with those vehicles before they are dumped.
	Then there is a whole range of small garden, domestic and builders' rubbish which appears overnight. If it appears on the verge, it is for the local authority to deal with. Bottles are a particular problem if thrown into a crop of grass or peas. If at harvest time a bottle is smashed by a flail harvester or pea viner, the whole load will have to be discarded. Several tonnes of peas with one smashed bottle in them are themselves a disposal problem—what on earth do you do with them?—and, of course, a financial loss.
	I should like to draw to your Lordships' attention two other small problems. The first is road management, widening and providing passing spaces. The noble Lord, Lord Moran, does not want us to put notices on parking spaces. However, by far the greatest mileage of roads in this country were designed for the horse and cart or for driving cattle along. If you live in the West Country, it is not quite so much of a problem as you cannot drive your car into a hedge because the hedges are full of stones; it is a foolish thing to do. However, in the eastern counties, driving into hedges merely brings the verge down and ultimately the hedge on to the road. Great lengths of road are "widened" by large vehicles, agricultural tractors and articulated lorries, and are bare, scarred and ugly when dry and muddy and stony when wet. Can the road authorities look carefully at providing proper passing places with no parking notices?
	The second problem is vandalism. By that I mean particularly the removal of tiles, stones, bricks, slates and coping stones from walls. I believe that in one national park one whole building disappeared—presumably to make rockeries somewhere.
	In conclusion, I ask the Government to encourage the local authorities to be even more vigilant in their responsibilities, to consider some form of help to landowners—private, public, National Trust or Forestry Commission—in clearing away fly-tipping on their land; and to try to pre-judge correctly the effects of the various rubbish-related directives coming out of Brussels. In that way, perhaps we could have a tidier and more acceptable British countryside.

Lord Sutherland of Houndwood: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Palmer for initiating this debate. By rural standards, we are almost near neighbours. I commend his opening speech which seemed to me to bring knowledge, understanding of the issues, and a commitment to face them positively. It is also a pleasure to take part in a debate with a fine maiden speech that opens up further dimensions of the issue.
	I take two starting points for my few remarks, both, surprisingly perhaps, press announcements from the DTI. On 22nd May there was an announcement of government commitment to provide broadband access for remote areas of the UK. On 6th June a further press release marked a meeting or conference bringing together three agencies, including the DTI, with the aim of promoting support for small businesses in rural areas. I pause at this point. Noble Lords may wonder who this strange man is who reads from any DTI press releases. I have to confess I ask the question occasionally myself.
	The two press releases incorporate some fine language and rhetoric. Indeed, I spotted what I believe to be now a fairly rare sighting of what was once a commonplace of government press releases—the phrase "joined-up Government". I also spotted an ever rarer event: an example of inter-departmental coupling that justifies the use of that expression. There was, commendably, reference to an interaction between DTI and Defra over the issue of helping small business in rural areas. I commend the Government and the relevant departments for that. I hope that the progeny of that coupling will be liberating rather than regulatory.
	In the press release of 22nd May there was reference to the government commitment, which I commend to your Lordships, to bring broadband access to every school by 2006. That will include rural schools. Let us give credit where credit is due. As I suggested, there is in those press releases some fine words. Equally, in the rural areas there are also fairly harsh realities against which fine words will be tested.
	I make two points. First, others have spoken of the need for infrastructure in terms of transport, postal services, banking support, and so on. I wish to focus my remarks specifically on telecommunications. I was pleased to hear the word "diversity" used well and properly in the debate. Two other words not used which I commend to noble Lords—they underlie almost everything that my noble friend Lord Palmer, said—are "development" and "adaption". As my noble friend's speech indicated, in our rural communities, in particular among those who farm in those communities, there is huge evidence of the capacity of the farming community to develop and adapt to new circumstances about which we should be very pleased indeed. There is a balance to be made.
	If the farming community is to continue to adapt and develop, it will need adequate telecommunications infrastructure. Any business today requires that, including the business of farming. I sometimes buy supplies of fresh fish and meat on the Internet. If the capacity to provide such a service is not in our rural communities, a sale has gone. Equally, we have heard mention of the importance of tourism. Again, many of us book holidays, flights, hotels and guesthouses through the Internet. If that capacity is not there, the infrastructure cannot cope with the demands that modern users of the facilities will make and, again, business will be lost.
	Alongside the word "diversify", I put the words "development" and "adaption". However, the reality is that the quality of current telecommunication provision in some rural areas is appalling. As many noble Lords do, I move between rural areas and London, and have noticed the difference in quality of service that a single telephone link gives us in this city compared to the quality in the rural areas where some of your Lordships live. Certainly, when a train passes my home a mile away, I lose my Internet connection, if I have it, or the conversation goes. That is not the noise of the train, it is the electronic noise created by the lack of suppressers on the line. If one talks to the telecommunications provider, it is the fault of the railways, and vice versa.
	The point that I am making is that there has already been a lack of attention to telecommunications. We hear fine words about providing broadband. I know that that will introduce a new technology, but the standard attitudes to which reference has already been made will still apply. For example, there is the attitude that rural communities are not a mass market. The risk is that that one comes at the end of the queue and the previous queue and the one before that has not been cleared, let alone the queue for broadband access.
	I commend the Government's commitment to supply broadband access to all schools by 2006, including rural schools. I ask the Minister for a comparable commitment to the homes to which the children return each afternoon, in which their parents may be struggling to diversify without adequate telecommunications infrastructure.

Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, I join in the commendation of the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, for his initiative in securing the debate and maintaining his substantial record in this area. Many noble Lords have expressed anxiety about agriculture. They clearly feel that the echoes of policy documents, such as the one on food from our own resources, should not ebb away entirely or speedily. There is clearly anxiety that agriculture might revert to a museum activity. I do not share that view. Therefore, I listened with interest to the ebullient and optimistic contribution of my noble friend Lord Haskins. My one reservation is to share the anxiety of my noble friend Lord Judd about the difficulty of enjoying the night sky because of excessive illumination. That has certainly happened in my experience over the past four or five years as houses and jobs have proliferated in the Dearne Valley.
	There is an increasing awareness inside and outside agriculture of the importance of maintaining an agriculture that marries and matches the need to preserve the natural environment and protect our natural heritage. That is commendable. I know a number of farmers who are as committed as anyone to that cause.
	The Government are committed, too, but they do not seem to get much credit for the good things that they do. I accept that there are areas in which Government support could be more accurately directed. Grants should be directed to the land rather than the individual, for example. That argument is as strong as the argument that support should be based on acreage rather than headage, which some of us were arguing 20 years ago.
	The Government have often been unfairly criticised; they were not responsible for BSE or foot and mouth. They inherited BSE, and foot and mouth started as a result of foul and grossly unacceptable farming malpractice and spread because of rapid transportation of wildlife that bore no relation to legislation or humane practice. One hopes that the legislation since that horrible event and the experience that beset our farming communities in many parts of the island does not happen again.
	However, there will be crime. My noble friend Lord Judd suggested that crime was worse in urban areas, but it is serious in rural areas. I echo the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Walpole, about the criminal tipping of waste material in rural areas. I remind the House that my noble friend Lord Whitty, with general approval, suggested that the courts should take a much more serious view of these offences. The fine should be such as to prove a proper deterrent.
	One of my concerns is that, despite good television programmes and good coverage of conservation matters in our newspapers, there is a widespread and lamentable ignorance in this country on those matters. I live in the South Yorkshire forest area, and I doubt whether more than a tiny proportion of our population fully understand or know much about that commendable development—which is commendable in the way that other community forests are.
	In a case that I heard about the other day, the first thing that a resident who had moved in from an urban area to live in the greenbelt did was to buy his young son an airgun, give him some pellets and send him down to the local lake where people enjoy watching the wildlife. He did not go far in that direction. I think, too, of a case of a farmer whom I know very well, who said only a few weeks ago that he would have to stop cultivating a field not far from my home because every time his tractor appeared, children were throwing stones at it. Parents should be reminded more often of their responsibilities. Perhaps the increased resources given to the police will assist with the prosecution and discouragement of crime in our rural areas, because that is needed.
	I share the view that something has to be done about the housing problem in rural areas. There must be proper planning control to ensure that local people can remain. If they do, they may be more likely to use the rural post offices. We must give a much higher priority to brownfield development. I do not believe that enough attention has been given to that, but in some parts of the country a real achievement can be perceived.
	I moved to such an area—it was my constituency. It had been devastated by the closure of 10 collieries in a very short time, with unemployment and the rest of it developing. A very fine example of brownfield development has led to an absolute transformation and the regeneration of the economy and of hope. That would serve very well. We are right on the edge of the greenbelt, and I would rather build away from the greenbelt and achieve that sort of thing than see more houses built—especially houses that cost a lot of money and occupy a great deal of land. Such building disfigures the rural area, injures the landscape and dashes the hopes of those who live in rural England.

Lord Tanlaw: My Lords, I start by declaring an interest in a hill farm in Dumfriesshire and owning a heavy electrical engineering group. I thank my noble friend Lord Palmer for instigating the debate, which has attracted a great number of excellent speakers. That is about the only advantage of coming in as tail-end Charlie—one is able to listen to those speakers and find that there is not much to say oneself. The debate has attracted a great maiden speech from my noble friend the Duke of Norfolk, the Earl Marshal.
	Many speeches seem to be based on the sense of belonging to an historic, local or village community, which the Government have somehow to preserve economically and protect from the baser aspects of modern urban life, of which we have heard. That is a fundamental misconception. Many rural communities, almost without exception, are no longer purely agrarian based. Most rural communities are divided between those who live there all week, mainly because of their historic landed interest, and those who work in city offices some distance away. The latter seem to be mainly weekenders, who may have no family roots in the local area. This difference in occupations, incomes and means of transport often proves to be a divisive social factor because of the differing attitudes and needs in housing, education and other pursuits within a small community. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford covered this aspect very well. I believe that the social and political implications of these divisions require a separate debate on how the Government have to face up to these important clashes of lifestyle and objectives.
	The second area of disagreement extends to the Government and the Countryside Alliance because of the low priority that they have given to broadband, which, as many speakers have emphasised, is important for access to communications in rural areas. The main point of my remarks is to try to underline the importance of broadband communications, as other noble Lords have done. This is based on my experience of declared interests. There is no such thing as the countryside in electronic communications. Therefore, should we not recognise that we are now part of one huge global electronic village—a village that makes no distinction between town dweller and country dweller? Those who choose not to subscribe, or are unable to do so, to the broadband IT network will be excluded in future from a full education and an opportunity for economic and social advancement.
	It is necessary in farming—for example, in stock monitoring and marketing from conception to the point of sale. It is what the market requires, and it will require broadband masts and dishes for stock tracking and for the control and prevention of outbreaks of disease among farm animals—which cannot properly be controlled and monitored without broadband and the electronic tagging of stock. It has to come, but I have heard very little about this from the Government.
	What happens if a farmer wants to diversify? I refer to farm shops and to the sporting and holiday letting of cottages. Such activities will require broadband promotion if they are to be successful. Investment in derelict farm buildings, if they are to be turned into rural offices or factories, will require planning permission and broadband access for new tenants.
	I speak as an engineering manufacturer. When I put inward investment into a country I cannot do it without broadband access. No company will come to the countryside without such access. The investment that we saw in Eskdalemuir in the 1960s came about through the forestry people. That transformed the area and saved the whole community. But it was based on an entirely wrong misconception—which was why I planted my trees in the 1960s; namely, that forest industries would be established with the forests so that, when it came to cutting, forest industries would be chopping the wood into small pieces and putting it on the road as finished products. At present, huge lumps of trees are being moved on articulated lorries with 20-tonne axles which are destroying the road system and affecting bridges. That is because the factories were not located in the forests. Any further forestry investment by the Forestry Commission should be dependent on the industry being located in the rural communities.
	The farmer who wants to diversify needs broadband. The local post office needs to update: it needs a postmaster who is computer literate. Unless the local schools have broadband access, the children in those areas will not be able to catch up and have the same education as those in urban areas. The year 2006 is cited as the year when broadband will be available to the whole nation. Let us hope that it comes to Eskdalemuir. I want to see it there—like everyone who is concerned with the local community.
	It is said that rural police are non-existent or that there is difficulty in getting to see them. With broadband a household would be able to access and talk about its problem to a major police station, with top policemen. The same is true of hospitals. Local doctors would be able to gain access to homes in outlying areas. The problem could actually be filmed, and a doctor would be able to give medical advice and deal with the situation on the spot.
	It would not cost much for the Government to help and to subsidise people to gain access to broadband, but they have not done so. The communications companies have used the commercial argument that in areas of low population there is no commerciality in setting up masts and dishes. Please will the Government look into this? I cannot understand why the Government are spending money on mapping. I find it extraordinary. If ramblers are unable to find their way to the countryside, they have no business being ramblers.
	In a debate on ADSL, I once quoted an ode from Horace with which I shall not bore the House. Horace complained that when he was in the country he missed the pleasures of Rome, and when in Rome he missed the pleasures of the countryside. With broadband, you are able, to a certain degree, to enjoy both.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, on his introductory speech. It was a tour de force in terms of facts and figures and experience.
	It was right that we should touch on agriculture. The noble Duke gave an admirable maiden speech on the subject. We have also touched on a wide variety of other themes. I noted in particular gardens, fly-tipping, sodium lighting, broadband and the role of churches among the matters on which I shall not have time to expand. As regards agriculture, I look forward to hearing the Minister's reply to the question from my noble friend Lord Mackie of Benshie about decoupling.
	I should like to dwell for a moment on the issues raised by the noble Lords, Lord Clark and Lord Mancroft, in regard to wildlife and species management. The noble Lord, Lord Clark, explained particularly well the benefits that having exciting species can bring to tourism. We ought also to worry about the species themselves.
	In replying, will the Minister comment on how he feels the biodiversity action plan—as set out in the Government's document, Working with the Grain of Nature—is going? Defra states that its biodiversity policy relies heavily on the partnership with the private and voluntary sectors. That is quite right. But Defra now needs to build on the success of the countryside stewardship scheme, which has always been hampered by lack of funds. Nevertheless, between landowners, the voluntary sector and now Defra, it has achieved some critical changes. Examples are: bigger grass margins round fields, which are good for nesting birds, insects and the food chain; retaining weedy winter stubble for feeding birds; and encouraging the renovation or creation of ponds—which encourage a wide range of wildlife.
	The RSPB and Defra are to be congratulated on the work of Operation Lapwing, about which I learnt much more when I went recently to the Parrett festival in Somerset. Operation Lapwing is based on work taking place on the River Parrett. Talking with some of the farmers and the RSPB, I was struck by the sheer amount of volunteer time it takes for those involved in trying to reintroduce a reasonable number of lapwings onto their land. It involves matters as basic as marking the birds' nests with poles. I did not realise that the eggs can then be moved to the edge of the field, any necessary cultivation can be done, and the eggs can then be moved back. That is acceptable. I learnt that the chicks can run as soon as they are born, which I did not know previously. As your Lordships can tell, it was a very informative session.
	The Minister will remember that some time ago he told the House about some of the headline species that have been chosen by the Government. The skylark was one. But what about barn owls, whose numbers are dropping? I could quote a number of other species to illustrate the point.
	The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, raised an extremely important issue regarding deer. The Hunting Bill will come before this House. Your Lordships have been very restrained; but with that Bill facing us, the issue of species management is crucial. Whatever the outcome of the Bill, hunting is not the only area that the Government will need to dwell on. The issue of deer and traffic accidents is very serious. The number of deer across the country is growing rapidly. Some worthwhile schemes are being developed through the deer initiative but there is further work to be done.
	Badgers are protected but are being experimented on through the Krebs trials. We may have to address difficult issues involving badgers; for example, the fact that they undermine foundations of houses. We had to move many badgers from my home town of Yeovil, where they were undermining the foundations of almost a whole street.
	Noble Lords frequently ask questions about invasive species such as knotweed and Himalayan balsam but I want to discuss biodiversity as a whole. We have not yet got cane toads from Australia but species have become a global issue to the extent that what could be called non-indigenous species create problems.
	I enjoyed the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Haskins, and I look forward to the recommendations of his review. However, some of his optimism was misplaced. He pointed out that small shops were closing because people did not want to use them, but I take issue with that. Small shops were also threatened by supermarkets that laid on free buses to rural areas, which people found to be more convenient because it also gave them access to the town. Supermarkets did not do that from the good of their heart; they did so because they felt that people would then shop with them, and they were quite right. They also benefit hugely in small market towns because they have free car parking, which local authorities do not usually offer to other shops, which suffer as a result. I hope that the Minister will comment on those issues.
	The review of the noble Lord, Lord Haskins, provoked much discussion in my neck of the woods, mainly about the streamlining of grants. I did not agree with much of what the noble Earl, Lord Arran, said, but I agreed with his comments on grants. I declare an interest as a Somerset county councillor. The council often acts as a facilitator in that process. The current system is appalling. There are now full-time jobs as grant bidders but—worse—I discovered that new jobs as advisers to grant bidders are also springing up in the private sector. Basically, there are too many bodies that must be bid to, and they all have different criteria.
	Partnership is good but it now means that even small projects must assemble a vast range of partners. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford was absolutely right when he mentioned the inappropriateness of rural development agencies in that context. Their top-down approach in some of their policies in rural areas is completely inappropriate.
	The Government had a good idea involving community interest companies. However, I do not believe that it has been rural-proofed, which I thought was now supposed to happen with all government policies. I give the Minister an example. Rural schools could be a centre of many things and, in some instances, could be a community interest company. However, schools are excluded from that. In a village, a school is often the only centre that is likely to fall into that category.
	I also welcome some of the Countryside Agency's current work. I expect that other noble Lords also received through the post today the new questionnaire about the countryside code. I am pleased to say that we on these Benches persuaded the Government to introduce that into the Countryside and Rights of Way Act. We look forward to filling in the questionnaire and sending it back. That code should be highly promoted and used as one of the tools that the Government use to draw together what should happen when people visit the countryside.
	I also praise the Government for what they have called MAGIC. The Minister will be aware of it. It is a land-based mapping system, and very exciting it is, too. I was introduced to it on the Defra stand at the Royal Bath and West Show. It is an excellent innovation and I recommend it to noble Lords.
	I turn to the excellent points made by the noble Earl, Lord Liverpool, on which I should like to expand. He discussed renewable energy and biomass and the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, discussed biofuels. I regret the fact that the Government have allowed the biomass plant known as Arbre, which the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, mentioned, to flounder. I realise that it is a private sector initiative. The Government found it in their heart to bale out British Energy time and again to the tune of hundreds of millions of pounds. Apparently, according to one farmer among 35 who were supplying Miscanthus or willow to the plant, there has not been a single contact from the DTI about the closure of the plant so soon in its operations. The farmer felt that the DTI could have helped the farmers to look for new markets and to consider co-firing biomass with coal. That is extremely regrettable and leads me to wonder about the Government's commitment to renewables.
	Finally, I want to mention two other issues. The first, that of branch lines, was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Bradshaw. If the Government want to introduce congestion charging more widely in other cities, they must consider the position of rural railways that serve the towns. I shall give two examples: the Barnstaple to Exeter line, which is very rural and very good at serving Exeter, and the Weymouth to Bath and Bristol line, which serves dozens of small market towns and goes straight to the heart of Bath and Bristol. Secondly, I turn to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, about national parks. We can expect a review of national parks to be published soon, and I hope that we will debate it in your Lordships' House. National parks should be the test-bed for sustainable development; they can be the test-bed for exciting ideas. We must debate the progress that the parks have made and the role that they should serve in future. I refer in particular to introducing children from urban communities into the most beautiful and inspiring areas of our countryside.
	Finally, I again congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, on a truly inspiring debate.

Baroness Byford: My Lords, I begin by welcoming the noble Duke the Earl Marshal to the House and congratulate him on his excellent maiden speech. It gives me double pleasure because he welcomed me three years ago, I believe, to his farm in West Sussex. We had a long discussion about the crisis facing agriculture. I am very grateful to him. We look forward to hearing from him many times in the future.
	I remind the House of my family's farming interests. We have an arable farm outside Lavenham in Suffolk and released land for affordable housing. Many noble Lords have touched on that. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, for giving us this opportunity once again to go through many of the arguments and challenges that are faced by those who live and work in the countryside and those who come to enjoy it.
	The noble Lord gave some fairly stark figures on incomes and crops and described how many tonnes he had to produce to get the money required at the end of the day. We all know that he is a great champion of the biofuel industry. He also touched on the closure of Arbre, which the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, mentioned. We view it as a great sadness. He proposed the new idea of a subsidised taxi service. So often we are told by the Government, "All you do is complain; you never come up with good ideas". That is a good idea, and I hope that the Minister will respond to it.
	This debate very sensibly was chosen to look at the whole of the countryside and not just at farming per se. We have touched on affordable housing, broadband, landscape, churches, communities and the support they give to each other, crime and on the whole question of the CAP reform and of the need for it to be attached to the land rather than to go with the person who farms the land. We have talked about wildlife. But most of all we have talked of—and I return to it because it underlines the whole issue—the need to have profitable and sustainable farming. Whether or not we want to talk about farming all day—and many of us in this House would be very happy to—the one thing on which we would all agree is that if we do not have a profitable farming community then the very things we want to protect, encourage and have other people enjoy will not be available because one cannot continue to sustain farming if one does not make a profit.
	I agree with other noble Lords who said there should not be a divide between town and country. Whenever I speak, I try to bring the two together because we all eat food. The question is: what food do we eat? I hope it says on my back, "From UK agriculture every day if I can", because I am very anxious that we should promote our own agriculture here and not, as we heard in our debate yesterday—I have to say it was discrimination—that of the less developed countries. We have a role to play there.
	Agriculture and horticulture are at the heart of what happens in the countryside. Whether we live and work there or are visitors, we love the countryside. The countryside is as it is because it is worked and farmed. It is man-made and maintained. That is something that we should never forget.
	On many occasions we have talked about people moving from urban areas and going to live in villages. Some of them are perhaps a little disappointed when they arrive. Aspects they have taken for granted in towns are not accessible in villages. It is a long drive to work, to school or to visit old friends. There is often no shop within five miles. The nearest post office may be two miles away; and 194 of those closed last year. There may be only one doctor's surgery, which might be in the next village.
	Sometimes children and fathers of those families complain bitterly at the loss of broadband access to the Internet. The nearest play area that allows ball games may be a mile and a quarter away and down a narrow winding lane, which is used from morning until night by large lorries trying to make up lost time. Indeed, I was grateful for the contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, who reminded us that half of all accidents occur on rural roads, and that it is a really large problem.
	So, all is not as easy as it might be. Not all those who move to the countryside leave, but some stay, settle in and support what happens in their villages. However, as other noble Lords have said, broadband is one of the issues that the Government need to address. Only 1 per cent of houses in remote locations and only 7 per cent of village homes have access to broadband, compared with 95 per cent in towns. I hope the Minister received those figures because they speak for themselves. In addition, young adults or widowed pensioners wishing to remain find that there is a shortage of affordable properties to buy. There is also a lack of homes to rent at rates they can afford—a matter which has been touched on around the House.
	Transport is a problem. Again we have touched on that issue. A sizeable proportion of rural dwellers are not car- owners. There may be a car in the family, but usually the wage earner takes it with him and the other person is left without adequate transport. Sometimes it is not possible to take a bus to visit a doctor, to go to the dentist or to visit a hospital because the return journey begins too soon or too late. As we have said in previous discussions, magistrates' courts have closed down in many rural areas, making it difficult for people to attend when necessary.
	Many noble Lords have spoken about urban crime. It is reducing because of the installation of CCTV and the targeting of police methods. The smarter of the criminal fraternity are therefore moving to the countryside.
	Fly-tipping, as we have heard—we had a debate on it last week—is on the increase, as public tips enforce charging for large quantities of waste. The beauty of rural walks is increasingly being marred by heaps of stinking household rubbish, mounds of builders' rubble and the dangerous and unsightly carcasses of burnt-out cars. In many cases the local authority moves them when that occurs on the roadside, but when it occurs on someone's private property it is the landowner's responsibility to do so at his expense.
	Those who have lived and worked in the countryside for generations—and I was grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, for her very specific contribution today—know how it is and how it is kept. They have done so at their own expense and using their own experience, but they are being overwhelmed by costly rules and regulations.
	Farmers are faced with steadily increasing costs, particularly as a result of European legislation, such as the ear-tagging of sheep and the non-burial of fallen stock. That has not only affected the disposal of animals that die on the farm; it is a great blow to our abattoirs, which now have to look at different ways of disposing of blood. So, there is an impact on small and medium-sized abattoirs.
	Agriculture, tourism and rural diversification are beset by multiple incentive schemes, many of which require bids which either will not succeed or will do so after the available money is exhausted. My noble friend Lord Arran spoke about that. I give one example. The Countryside Agency runs a "vital villages" scheme, which has been hugely successful. Unfortunately, the scheme has been stopped because it has run out of money. That is not really very helpful when one is trying to plan for the future.
	Perhaps I may touch on tourism. Ten members of the Royal Family, as has already been said, devoted yesterday to promoting tourist attractions throughout the UK. The main aim was to persuade our own people to spend some holiday time in our countryside rather than going abroad. I place my thanks on the record for the action they took because it really has highlighted the attractions we have within our own country, which so often we fail to realise.
	Rural people are working hard to learn the modern skills of marketing, Internet selling and product development. All is not doom and gloom out there. There are many good examples of new people coming into business who actually do not look back over their shoulders but who are looking at ways to take business into the 21st century. All around the country, pubs and cafes are using locally-sourced foods. Guides and cookbooks promote county specialities. Farmers sell their produce at the farm gate and in their shops. There are box schemes for fresh produce, farmers' markets, visitor attraction centres and craft centres which incorporate wonderful home-cooked food in their restaurants. So there are good things happening out there.
	However, I should like to touch briefly on the CAP reform. It should assist those who have maintained the countryside as a by-product of farming as an end in itself. However, as we have heard, large numbers are leaving the land. If CAP reform means that the amount of money able to be claimed by a farmer goes away from the land, I think it will raise great problems. What will happen, for example, when the person has moved away and a new entrant comes on to the land with no support by way of subsidies? How can he compete against another farmer who still has subsidies? That is an issue that perhaps the Government have not fully taken on board. Have they realised the environmental implications? Obviously, the new entrant will be very keen to farm in the most aggressive way he can to get the best return for his money. That will have a huge environmental impact.
	Also, the Rural Payments Agency is still six months late with its payments on suckler cow premiums. What is being done about that? As a result of bovine TB, some 23,000 cows were killed last year. What are the Government going to do about that, because it is getting out of hand?
	My last two points concern rights of way and the mapping exercise. First, the mapping exercise has been hugely costly. What is the cost? Secondly, what of the question of private land and gardens being included in some of the mapping exercises and the arbitrary reclassification of some private paths as public footpaths? Those are hugely important issues.
	I end by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, for introducing this excellent debate, and I look forward to hearing the Minister's response.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I join other noble Lords in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, for initiating this wide-ranging debate—probably even more wide-ranging than he thought it would be—and in extending my thanks and congratulations to the noble Duke, the Earl Marshal, in his informative maiden speech.
	I am not sure that I can reply to all the points that have been made; with some, I shall not try. Your Lordships will be glad to hear that I shall not respond to any points relating to hunting—I suspect that the House will have plenty of time to discuss those later—save to say that the references to hare coursing made by the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, may also be dealt with in that context.
	Nor, with apologies to the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, shall I go into great detail about negotiations on CAP reform, partly because we had a detailed debate yesterday and partly because the negotiations started at 3 o'clock this afternoon, and the whole situation may have changed by now. I would not want to undermine my right honourable friend Margaret Beckett in her negotiations by saying anything about the likely outcome at this stage. We are all clear about the general direction in which Commissioner Fischler wants to go, much of which fits in with the Government's view.
	I shall make two points to begin with. First, I echo the point made by several of my noble friends and others, that we must not allow ourselves to consider the countryside as being significantly different in its concerns, anxieties and prospects from the rest of the community. Of course, there are differences between rural and urban society, but the latest Countryside Agency survey highlights the key fact that, although there are significant problems in the countryside, the pattern of distribution of income, the problem of access to services and the general level of prosperity are, if anything, better in the countryside than in the town.
	My noble friend Lord Judd pointed out that education, health and the prosperity of new businesses are, in general, better in rural areas than in towns. That does not mean that there are not pockets of serious disadvantage in remoter parts of the countryside or serious economic problems in parts of the agricultural sector. But it is important to say that many problems are the same, and therefore need to be addressed by general rather than specific policies—while not in any sense reneging on the Government's commitment to ensure that those general policies are positively and clearly rural-proofed. Where there are differences in both delivery and problems, we must address them.
	The other point is that it is wrong to say, as, I fear, the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, said, that the countryside is in dire straits. There is significant prosperity in the countryside. My view is closer to that of my noble friend Lord Haskins than to some of the remarks that have been made in the debate. There is much vibrancy and change, new enterprise and business in the countryside; people are moving in and out of the countryside; and that of itself causes some tension and problems, which we must address. But to say that the countryside is in a state of depression is, with a few isolated exceptions, wrong.
	Of course, I do not entirely go along with my noble friend Lord Haskins in his dismissal of romantics, or even of dinosaurs. As my noble friend Lord Judd said, we need a special approach and vision for the countryside—especially for the national parks and more attractive areas of our landscape. But, in general, prosperity is reasonably spread.
	As ever—and, I suppose, rightly so—the debate has concentrated on agriculture although not, today, disproportionately, compared with earlier debates in which I have participated in the House. Nevertheless, that industry has been most focused on, albeit that it is no longer the biggest industry in our rural areas. The noble Lord, Lord Palmer, himself emphasised the problems of agriculture. I agree with his analysis of some of them. As the noble Earl, Lord Peel, and others said, we must approach them broadly through the strategy laid down by the Curry commission, which is a strategy for the whole food chain.
	Some of the economic problems of farming can be addressed not by changing the subsidy system so much as by changing the relationship between farmers and the rest of the food chain—in particular, the supermarkets and large processors—whereby farmers get back more of the value added in the food chain and of the price that consumers pay in the shops. But some of that relates to the effects of the CAP and how subsidies have distorted what farming is done, so that, as I said yesterday, farmers have been chasing subsidies, rather than the market.
	The whole point about profitability in farming—which, I agree, is part of the sustainability of agriculture and the countryside as a whole—is that if farmers are freed from the burden of chasing subsidy, they will chase the market. The way to get prosperity in farming enterprises, as in any other enterprise, is to anticipate and meet the market. Yes, there is a public interest in supporting farming in general land management, because we want the country landscape as a background for other economic and social activities in the countryside—tourism and others. That is the way in which we hope that the CAP is moving, but it is also important to recognise that the way to get money back into farming is by making it more market-oriented than some sectors have been—largely, although not entirely, as a result of the CAP.
	Many references were made to the problems of regulation in farming. The noble Lord, Lord Monro, the noble Duke, the Earl Marshal, the noble Earl, Lord Peel, the noble Lord, Lord Cavendish, and others emphasised the problems that farmers face through regulation. I shall say only two things about that. First, it would be wrong for me to give the impression that regulation will go away. Society demands more from economic activities of all sorts, and farming has been exempt from some regulation that is now hitting it—relating to waste, water pollution, and so forth—which has hitherto been faced by other parts of industry. That is not to say that it is easy for farming to meet those regulatory requirements, but it is equitable to ask it to do so.
	Also, it is true that regulation in this country is largely driven by Europe. I accept that, sometimes, European regulation can be disproportionate, clumsy or too prescriptive. The Government are trying to ensure that the European approach to regulation moves more to outcome-related regulation from prescribing exactly what farmers and other businesses do. But it is important that we have Europe-wide regulation. The single market, which exists in agriculture as in other sectors, should be subject to common rules.
	It is therefore important, on the one hand, that we fulfil the Prime Minister's obligation to agriculture—that in future we do not gold-plate European legislation—but also that we recognise that European legislation sets the standards for our farming, and, frankly, stop knocking other European Union countries. Frequently, when we investigate the individual allegations about their rather lighter touch of regulation, if anything, the opposite turns out to be the case. Certainly, if we compare ourselves with France, the level of regulation and number of inspectors and checkers of the food chain and farming in France tends to be somewhat higher than ours. Therefore regulation at European level is inevitably part of agriculture.
	We need to ensure that regulation is delivered in an entirely different way. Instead of forcing farmers to deal with 17 different regulators and umpteen different sets of regulation, we approach it as a total production. The whole-farm approach should apply to regulation as it should to planning and to the delivery of assurance schemes. If we can achieve the benign cycle where regulation operates on a whole-farm basis, delivers a whole farm plan and delivers the quality of goods that is appropriate for whole-farm assurance schemes, then we are out of the rut of dealing with bureaucracy on the one hand, from the subsidies on the other, from regulation and from the assurance schemes themselves. We are driving towards that end with the whole-farm strategies as laid out by the Curry commission. It will take us a little time to arrive there, but it is a top priority for Defra and its agencies.
	Before moving on I shall say two things about agriculture. The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, asked about the fallen stock regulation. I agree that there is some concern about whether that is appropriate, but the regulation is an important protection of our environment arising largely from the BSE experience, and it is a European obligation. I regret that the farming organisations did not consult and deal with us to set up a national disposal scheme earlier in the game. When we reached agreement with the farming organisations a few weeks ago for a viable national disposal scheme to which we would make a significant government contribution—but expected a levy from farmers—they then contacted their members and have been vigorously trying to make their members sign up. Regrettably, we are not yet at the point where we could deliver the level of participation where a national disposal scheme can operate. I wish we were. A national disposal scheme was the best solution, and could still be, but unless we receive a greater response from farmers we will not be at that point.

Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, does that mean the Minister will extend the scheme to bury on farms until something is in operation?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, no I cannot say that. We are already obliged under European law to prohibit disposal on farms. My colleague Elliot Morley has said that in the initial months as people become used to the rules, there will be a relatively light-touch enforcement. That does not mean that the legal obligation is in any way suspended. We do need the participation and the commitment of farmers to deliver a national disposal scheme. The noble Baroness asked about TB. There are substantial efforts to eradicate TB but it is a serious programme, particularly in some parts of the country. It is our highest priority for animal health at the moment.
	An aspect of agriculture that is dear to the heart of the noble Lord, Lord Palmer—and was also focused on by others, including the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, and the noble Earl, Lord Liverpool—is biofuels. We have not yet put our act fully together on biofuels but there is a strong commitment from the Government to do so, both on converting crops into liquid biofuels and on biomass. I do not believe that the noble Lord was right to say that the choice is one or the other, or that one is better than the other. We need to develop on both fronts and through caps in the fiscal regime and other support for biofuels we want to ensure that we can deliver on both the liquid fuel side and the biomass side.
	I agree with those, including the noble Baronesses, Lady Miller and Lady Byford, who referred to the Arbre project. That was an unfortunate situation. It does not indicate any lack of enthusiasm from the Government. As we said in the energy White Paper, we wish to deliver 10 per cent of energy by renewables, of which biomass will be a significant part. I am glad that the liquidators have now reached an agreement for the sale of the Arbre plant to a new owner and I am hopeful that that can be brought back into commercial operation with the farmers who were supplying the plant under its previous owner. The DTI may well be at arm's length from the project, but officials from my department have certainly been in constant contact with both the farmers and the Arbre project throughout this difficult period.
	I shall move on briefly from agriculture to another element of land use in the countryside—forestry. The noble Lord, Lord Palmer, referred to that, and my noble friend Lord Clark of Windermere explained how forestry can be used not only for its own benefits and despite the economic difficulties of the forestry sector, but to deliver wider economic, social and environmental benefits to the countryside by delivering both ospreys and tourists into that area of Cumbria. Forestry must be an important part of the future of our landscape.
	The other problems of the countryside upon which most of the debate focused are important—particularly the delivery of services to people who live there. The Government's rural White Paper published two years ago is being reviewed, as the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, requested, and we are taking stock of how far we have delivered on the strategy. A number of major government commitments have taken place in relation to support for rural transport. £239 million has been allocated over the current three-year period. There has been support for rural schools, with the creation of a formal presumption against closure. We have provided £450 million of support to at least slow down the process of closure of rural post offices, and we have supported rural businesses—particularly rural pubs, garages and shops. That is a significant and relatively new effort by the Government to deliver and retain a degree of economic activity within villages. That also needs to be put into the context of our general policy on vital villages and market towns, aimed at revitalising economic activity within those villages.
	While it may be true that those who live in villages, whether incomers or ancient inhabitants, are attracted away from the village to the supermarkets and the town from time to time, it is important that that is not their only economic activity and that some of the money that is coming into those villages is spent in the villages and market towns. Our policy is directed at that.
	The housing market in rural areas is the largest problem of service delivery in total. It is also the most difficult problem for our rural areas—or at least some of them. In a sense, it is a symptom of their success in that far from being depopulated, which used to be the problem, far too many people are wanting to live in the villages and small towns of our countryside and are bringing in substantial amounts of money to purchase and develop properties in a way which takes them out of the range of local people. A large number of speakers focused on that, including the noble Lords, Lord Palmer and Lord Haskins, and the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu. Throughout the debate reference was repeatedly made to affordable housing and the housing market within rural areas.
	That is an important and difficult problem. The Government are looking at various moves in that respect—for example, at least to reduce the attraction of some second homes by allowing local authorities to reduce the council tax discount on second homes from 50 per cent to 10 per cent. More positively, we are delivering through the Housing Corporation affordable homes for approval in rural areas. The £250 million starter home initiative is also being designed to help rural areas where house price affordability is a serious problem both for retention of populations and for the retention and attraction of key workers.
	We recognise that more needs to be done in this area by combinations of public and private sector activity and by new initiatives such as the designation of areas for affordable housing, perhaps along the lines referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw. We certainly need new initiatives within rural housing. Some of that is the Government's responsibility, but some must be done in partnership with local authorities, building societies and building developers.
	There is a bit of a contradiction in some of the comments made in this debate and elsewhere. If we are to cope with incomers who bring prosperity to villages and also keep people in villages with affordable housing, there will have to be new developments in countryside villages and in towns. We cannot say, "This is a closed area." As has been said, we cannot set the countryside in aspic. There will need to be more housing in country areas. They will not have to be huge developments or huge hacienda-type low-density housing, but there will have to be affordable housing in rural areas to keep local people in the area.
	Transport is another serious issue. As I said, we have spent substantial sums on it. However, we also recognise that more needs to be done. The noble Lord, Lord Palmer, and other noble Lords referred to taxis and more flexible forms of transport. Some rural bus services have certainly been a success, and we have certainly spent a lot of money on them. However, we need to look at more flexible bus, quasi-bus and quasi-taxi services that will meet the needs particularly of those who do not have access, or rarely have access, to a car.
	Law and order is another problem to which noble Lords have alluded. It is true that crime is at a much lower level in rural areas than in the rest of the country. However, it is a growing problem in rural areas, and there is a growing fear of crime particularly in isolated areas. Noble Lords both mentioned that and cited specifics of new types of rural crime and rural vandalism. Fly-tipping is hardly new, but it has increased in frequency—an issue which we discussed in the House not long ago. The Government have taken and are contemplating taking further measures in relation to fly-tipping of all sorts. As my noble friend Lord Hardy reminded me, I was slightly critical of the courts as regards the level of sanction that should be applied to serious environmental crimes involving people tipping huge amounts of building rubbish on to prime land.
	So I think that more needs to be done in rural areas. However, we have also provided significant funds for rural policing and innovative forms of support for rural crime detection.
	I should say a few words about another service that many—perhaps more than expected—noble Lords mentioned: broadband. If the rural population is to participate fully in business and educational activities and developments, then broadband will need to be extended. Our aim is that every community in the UK regardless of location should have the opportunity to gain access to affordable broadband from a competitive market. We have allocated £30 million to the RDAs in England to take forward innovative schemes so that they can meet local broadband requirements.
	I turn very briefly to what I have already referred to as the background to all of this—the landscape and accompanying wildlife and biodiversity to which we are all devoted and which we all recognise is the major attraction of the English rural scene. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, asked about the biodiversity action programmes. We have made considerable progress in that respect. However, it is true that we have stabilised or improved just under half of the action programmes which we have undertaken and vigorously pursued, whereas just over half have not yet turned the corner. That includes some of the farmland birds to which she referred. The level of farmland birds is a PSA objective for Defra. Although that does not necessarily give it priority over everything else, it symbolises the importance that my department attaches to the restoration of wildlife in determining its objectives.
	It is clearly important that any change in the CAP and in other support measures for farming and land management is directed at ensuring that the landscape provides a backdrop that is attractive to those who live in the countryside and particularly to tourists of all sorts who come into the countryside. Again, that does not mean maintaining the landscape in aspic. However much people may think to the contrary, the fact is that the farmed landscape does not look the same as it did 50 years ago. It will not look the same 50 years from now. Farming patterns and land ownership patterns will change. We want to ensure that, within that process, the landscape does not deteriorate into scrub and that the wildlife and positive features of our landscape are not destroyed.
	Consequently, I believe that the single payment under the proposed changes in the CAP, the detail of which is still to be worked out, will help to deliver by ensuring that farmers and other land managers meet their obligations and receive support from the rest of the community via what has hitherto been called the common agricultural policy, but which should really be a policy for the delivery of our rural landscape.
	I should like to mention just one other matter—the few sideswipes taken at Defra. I am not going to be exceptionally sensitive about those. The noble Earl, Lord Arran, was probably the most extreme, but there were others. I believe that we have turned the corner in our relationship with the farming community, although there is a long way to go. I also think that Defra's new initiatives in delivering this wide range of benefits to the countryside and in influencing the rural policy of other government departments are an important change in the past two to three years. However, that needs to go further. I shall be receiving the advice of my noble friend Lord Haskins on how better to deliver that programme.
	I believe that we have made a good start. I think that the methods of delivery could be better, and they will be better. As a result of that commitment I believe that we will have a better countryside, a better landscape—indeed a better agricultural sector—and a closer partnership between government and those who live and work in the countryside.

Lord Palmer: My Lords, I do hope that the noble Baroness is impressed at how we have all heeded her very strict warning at the beginning of this debate, very nearly four hours ago.
	I, too, should like to add my congratulations to my noble friend the Duke of Norfolk on a truly remarkable maiden speech. I am particularly pleased for once how many Back-Bench Labour Peers were able to take part today. It is interesting that among the list of speakers there were in fact 11 elected hereditary Peers. I know how disappointed some noble Lords were not to be able to take part, most especially the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, and the noble Lords, Lord Plumb, Lord Vinson, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate and Lord Carter.
	I am glad that I did not succumb to the pressure to change the wording of the Motion from "British" to "English", as we have had powerful contributions from noble Lords from all over the United Kingdom.
	The Minister as usual did an outstanding job in trying to reply to such a varied number of contributions. Many of us will be delighted about the whole farm plan, and it will be widely welcomed throughout the agricultural community. I was also heartened by his encouraging words about biofuels. I hope that he will forgive me for banging on about them yet again. I was also encouraged by his words about affordable rural housing and the fact that he acknowledges that this is a major problem.
	I thank him for the courteous way in which he has wound up the debate, and I thank all noble Lords for their valuable contribution this afternoon. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Drugs

Lord Cobbold: rose to call attention to the long-term effectiveness of current national and international policies on drugs; and to move for Papers.
	My Lords, I raise this subject with some trepidation. It is an emotive issue on which almost everyone has strong opinions. Personally, I have little experience of either the use of drugs or of dealing with the consequence of drug use in others. I have in the past occasionally encountered cannabis, both wittingly and unwittingly, but that is all. I am fortunate in that all my four children have eschewed the drug habit. But I have close friends who have lost a much-loved child from drugs, so I understand full well the horrors and the misery that drug use can cause. I do not smoke, but I would be very reluctant to do without my wine and my whisky.
	I do not in any sense belittle the danger and damage caused by drugs. My reason for raising the subject is that our present policies on drugs seem to be in conflict with common sense. The Home Office's Updated Drug Strategy 2002 states on page 40:
	"Society as a whole pays a high price for drug misuse. The total economic cost each year, including the cost to the health service, courts, prisons and other parts of the criminal justice system, and the benefits system is estimated at between £2.9 billion and £5.3 billion. When social costs such as the costs to crime victims are added, the total rises to between £10.1 billion and £17.4 billion".
	That is a cost of nearly £18 billion per annum.
	That contrasts with excise revenues from tobacco and alcohol, which provide the Government with an income of £14 billion per annum—a revenue stream that is admittedly offset by the costs of alcohol misuse and smoking related healthcare provision. But the revenue is also available to finance advertising and educational campaigns warning of the dangers of smoking and alcoholism. The campaign against smoking has been particularly effective in recent times.
	We are also told that we have the highest rate of drug usage in Europe and that more than 50 per cent of those in our overcrowded prisons are there for drug-related crimes. The war on drugs by any measure that one cares to take is not being won. One has to ask: is it indeed winnable with present policies?
	I was brought up with stories of Al Capone and alcohol prohibition in Chicago in the 1920s and 1930s. Prima facie, it seems that there are lessons to be learnt from that experience. Indeed, to the casual observer, today's drug scene looks even worse than Chicago. We are told that there are now about 250,000 problematic drug users in this country, compared with only about 5,000 in 1971, and that the 250,000 heroin and crack addicts are responsible for 99 per cent of the nearly £18 billion annual social and economic costs to which I have already referred.
	Then there are the strong links between problematic drug use and crime. According to the Government's Updated Drug Strategy 2002, around three quarters of crack and heroin users claim to be committing crime to feed their habit. But drug usage is not confined to the 250,000 problematic drug users. Around 4 million people, we are told, use at least one illicit drug each year, and around 1 million people use at least one of the most dangerous drugs that are classified as class A. All those people are therefore criminals. Does that make sense? One has to ask to what extent it is the responsibility of the state to protect individuals from damaging themselves. We live in an age when the nanny state interferes more and more in individual liberty. Has it gone one step too far in the case of drug laws? It is clearly the duty of the state to prevent injury and damage to third parties and to property, but our current drugs laws manifestly fail to do that.
	Prohibition is supposed to restrict supply, but clearly it does not. It benefits only the criminal gangs which dominate the trade. Common sense suggest to me at least that it would be more sensible to treat drugs in the same way as we treat alcohol and tobacco. Supply would be regulated and subject to tax and, very importantly, to quality control. Tax revenues could be applied to healthcare and educational campaigns on the dangers of drug use. The laws which already operate in the sphere of alcohol abuse could be extended easily to cover drug abuse.
	But, as we all know, it is not as simple as that. Even if decriminalisation were accepted in this country—which it is not—it is not a one-country problem; it is global. That brings me to consideration of the national framework in which we operate.
	Noble Lords will be aware that the main instrument for drugs control in the United Kingdom is the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. Noble Lords are probably also aware that this Act was the means by which the United Kingdom sought to meet its international obligations as a signatory to three United Nations conventions. In explaining the background to the legal position, I am indebted to the excellent report, Drugs and the Law 2000, commissioned by the Police Federation under the chairmanship of Dame Ruth Runciman.
	The relationship between our domestic law and international agreements goes back to the early years of the 20th century—The Hague convention of 1912 and the Shanghai commission of 1909, to be precise. The pattern has been for United Kingdom legislation to emerge from international agreements, although it has always been possible for the United Kingdom, as for other countries, to take action separately from international conventions.
	There are in fact three United Nations conventions on international co-operation in the drugs field, dating from 1961, 1971 and 1988. The 1988 convention supplements and strengthens the earlier two. Among other things, the conventions provide the basis for controlling the availability of drugs for legitimate medical and scientific purpose and for making the possession of drugs for personal consumption a criminal offence under domestic law in all member countries.
	The conventions were further consolidated in June 1988 at the United Nations 20th General Assembly Special Session (UNGASS) on the world drug problem. In its political declaration, the special session reaffirmed its,
	"unwavering determination and commitment to overcoming the world drug problem through domestic and international strategies to reduce both the illicit supply of and demand for drugs".
	The session set itself a range of ambitious targets to be achieved, among which were, first,
	"eliminating or reducing significantly the illicit cultivation of the coca bush, the cannabis plant and the opium poppy by the year 2008".
	Secondly,
	"achieving significant and measurable results in the field of demand reduction by the year 2008".
	And, thirdly,
	"eliminating or reducing significantly the illicit manufacture, marketing and trafficking of psychotropic substances, including synthetic drugs".
	This 10-year programme was to be the subject of review after five years. This five-year review actually took place at a conference in Vienna on 16th and 17th April this year.
	The meeting coincided with the war in Iraq and therefore received little or no coverage in the world press. The lack of publicity was in all probability welcomed by participants because it is self-evident that no progress whatever has been achieved in meeting the ambitious targets set in 1998. Drug production and use is at least as prevalent, and probably more so, than it was in 1998.
	The Economist, in its issue of 5th April this year ahead of the Vienna meeting, wrote:
	"This gathering will hear that the world is no closer to meeting its goals than it was five years ago. But instead of asking such questions as whether the whole project may be misguided, the meeting will almost certainly decide to redouble international efforts to achieve the unachievable".
	The prediction of the Economist seems to have been fulfilled. The joint ministerial statement issued following the meeting makes no attempt to measure progress against the target set at the UNGASS session five years ago. The statement simply reviews the commitment to the principles established by UNGASS. It concedes that,
	"drug abuse remains at an unacceptably high level",
	and expresses concern at,
	"the rapid and widespread increase in the illicit production and abuse of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances".
	Finally, the statement closes the door on any more radical discussions when it states:
	"We are gravely concerned about policies and activities in favour of the legalisation of illicit narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances that are not in accordance with international drug control treaties and that might jeopardise the international drug programme".
	That sentiment is echoed in the Home Secretary's foreword to his Updated Drug Strategy 2002, where he stated that
	"all controlled drugs are harmful and will remain illegal".
	For those who support current policies that will be a matter of relief. But for those who would like to see a radical rethink of our policy on drugs the way ahead looks arduous, at both the national and international levels. The forces of zero tolerance are firmly entrenched.
	What, if anything, can be done in the meantime? Are there any positive measures that can be taken within the existing legal framework? There are a number of research institutes, such as the Transform Drug Policy Institute and Forward Thinking on Drugs, which are actively promoting a change in the law. Nacro has said in its most recent report that,
	"the war on drugs is over—we lost".
	Many other excellent bodies promote work in the drug field and are doing a fantastic job.
	Noble Lords will be aware of the moves to transfer cannabis to Class C and to decriminalise its possession for personal consumption. These are welcome moves. Another area in which benefits can be achieved is harm reduction schemes. Such schemes are controversial, but they definitely help to reduce drug-related crime and the transmission of diseases, such as hepatitis and HIV. The Government's Updated Drug Strategy states in page 10:
	"Treatment works. It is the key to reducing the harm that drugs cause to users, family and communities. Investment in treatment is cost effective—for each £1 spent, an estimated £3 is saved in criminal justice costs alone".
	But, however effective and desirable treatment and harm-reduction schemes may be—and, of course, they should be encouraged—they are but a response to an existing crisis. They throw no light on the reasons for the crisis.
	There appears to be a sort of official stalemate. On the one hand, the Chief Constable of North Wales Police, Richard Brunstrom, can say at a recent Edinburgh conference:
	"We have given control of the most dangerous substances in our society to armed criminals. This cannot be sensible policy".
	While on the other hand, the Government's Updated Drug Strategy 2002 states that,
	"we will prevent young people from using drugs by maintaining prohibition which deters use".
	Prohibition, it appears, is accepted as a given.
	In its excellent report of May 2002, the House of Commons Home Affairs Committee made 24 recommendations, to which the Government responded formally in July last year. The final recommendation was:
	"We recommend that the Government initiates a discussion within the [United Nations] Commission on Narcotic Drugs of alternative ways— including the possibility of legislation and regulation—to tackle the global drugs dilemma".
	The Government responded:
	"The Government does not accept this recommendation. We do not accept that legalisation and regulation is now, or will be in the future, an acceptable response to the presence of drugs."
	I ask the Minister to confirm that that is still the Government's policy. Could he also tell us whether the Government believe that their policies are working, and that they are winning the war on drugs? Most important, can he explain why the Government appear unwilling even to discuss the pros and cons of decriminalisation versus prohibition?
	For those who believe in legalisation and regulation the future looks bleak. Given the Government's current position and the United Nations convention, the chances of making any progress within the foreseeable future are extremely remote. But let me assume for a moment that the Government could be persuaded to change their mind. What then might happen?
	There could be no rapid change since we would remain bound by the United Nations convention, and the only conceivable way of changing its terms, when they come up for review again in five years' time, would be for a group of like-minded nations to present a common view. There is clearly a mounting desire among some nations, particularly European nations, to pursue pragmatic strategies to address illegal drug use.
	The Government might first pursue more actively the quiet path currently being followed by the Netherlands, Switzerland, Portugal, Spain, Italy, Belgium and Germany, and elsewhere by, for example, Canada and Australia. It is perhaps a situation in which Europe could take the lead, but it would not be plain sailing. France and Sweden would be strongly against any such moves, while the United States is the ultimate protagonist of zero tolerance, which seems strange given its experience of alcohol prohibition in the past.
	But I fear that this is the land of make-believe. The best that we can hope for is that the Government might agree to sponsor an objective, cost-benefit audit of the pros and cons of legalisation and regulation. I hope that the Minister will give serious consideration to this suggestion.
	As I said at the beginning of my remarks, we are dealing with an emotive topic on which most people have strong views one way or the other. In raising the issue, I felt that a reasoned and objective debate on the subject was desirable and that your Lordships' House, with its unique wealth of experience, expertise, wisdom and, above all, common sense, was the best possible place in the world to have such a discussion.

Baroness Massey of Darwen: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, for securing this debate, which is both timely and important. It is of particular interest to me because I must declare an interest as the chair of the National Treatment Agency for Substance Misuse, a special health authority set up in 2001 to oversee the delivery of drug treatment services to double the numbers in treatment from 100,000 in 2001 to 200,000 in 2008 and to bring down waiting times. I must also declare an interest as a member of the board of the Advisory Council on Alcohol and Drug Education.
	This is a wide-ranging debate, but I shall focus on the issue of drug treatment in England and how we can improve its long-term effectiveness. I am fortunate in my role as chair of the National Treatment Agency in that it gives me the opportunity to travel around the country, visiting treatment programmes of many kinds and talking to providers, users and carers in a number of settings such as, for example, prisons, community settings and women's groups. I see both successes and problems.
	Treatment is relevant to both the health agenda and the criminal justice agenda. There is no contradiction in that. Drug misuse devastates the lives and health of individuals and families. Drug misuse is linked to crime in communities. The noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, referred to the success of treatment in saving money: £1 spent on treatment means that £3 is saved to the criminal justice system. But treatment has to be made effective; people have to be enabled to access the right treatment, be retained in treatment for long enough to help them to recover, and be given support after treatment in order to help them to stay drug free. Such support must relate not only to their drug habit, but to appropriate education, employment and housing.
	In order to achieve long-term effectiveness, there must be sustained government policy and strategy for delivery; there must be effective local strategy for planning and implementation; there must be clear guidance on best practice; there must be attention paid to the needs of diverse groups such as young people, women, black and minority ethnic groups, and those living in rural areas; there must be involvement in planning by service users and carers; there must be community ownership of programmes; and there must be research to define what is needed in practice, as well as training to improve staffing capacity.
	First, I turn to government policy. The updated drug strategy mentioned already by the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, has sections on prevention, reducing drug supply, reducing drug-related crime and treatment. New record investment is being made to tackle drug misuse, rising to £1.5 billion in 2006, with £300 million for the treatment budget. A drug worker in Manchester said to me recently:
	"It is a good time to be working in drug treatment—there are new initiatives and more money around, and more emphasis on planning and monitoring by the National Treatment Agency".
	As to guidance, a national service framework equivalent entitled "Models of Care" supports professionals in delivering appropriate treatment and through-care.
	Planning and implementation of strategy is carried out at a local level in England by drug action teams, DATs, of which there are 149, supported and monitored by my organisation. On a drug action team typically there will be representatives from education, the police, the prison service, probation, and so on. Partnership and joined-up action is vital. The Government Offices in the Regions now have a variety of teams working across communities. Each drug action team should ensure that drug users have access to a range of treatment, for example, detoxification, GP services, community drug treatment and residential rehabilitation.
	A few drug action teams are still not performing at optimum level, but there are spectacular success stories. For example, in South Gloucestershire a dynamic co-ordinator has within two years developed action plans across treatment services involving the community, and including users and carers. Dramatic improvements in services are evident. I have seen many drug action team plans which are systematic and impressive. All should be equally so.
	Nowadays, there are many different drugs and many different users. Addressing diversity is essential. Young people, women, and black and minority ethnic users have specific needs. Young people may be experimenters rather than hardened addicts and need more counselling and education. Women may be fearful of coming into treatment because of childcare issues or difficult domestic circumstances. Black and minority ethnic users may be stigmatised in the system or have little family support because of cultural reluctance to accept the drug use.
	I have said that involving users and carers in developing programmes is essential. There are now organised user and carer networks at national and local level: their voice is becoming stronger. Their insights about treatment systems are invaluable.
	Research into practice is key to developing good services. My organisation produces and disseminates briefing developed by expert groups on issues of concern, for example, prescribing. An example of community-based research can be seen in a remarkable programme funded by the Department of Health and developed by the University of Central Lancashire. They have trained community groups to do their own research into the needs of black and minority ethnic users. The research has highlighted gaps such as language barriers and family constraints, and will continue with further funding. Communities can identify their needs to develop action plans. Policy makers should listen.
	There are many new initiatives being carried out in the area of drug treatment. One such is the National Treatment Agency and the National Institute for Mental Health "Opening Doors" programme, which is working with 30 drug action teams to improve access to drug treatment and reduce waiting times. Teams at a local level have worked to identify blockages and possible ways through them, and not always costly ways. It has been described by a joint commissioner as,
	"perhaps the most exciting and dynamic thing I can remember happening to drug services since I came into the field".
	Waiting times in many of those areas have fallen dramatically.
	The introduction of integrated criminal justice teams in 25 high crime drug action team areas provides a unique opportunity to consolidate recent initiatives like arrest referral schemes, drug treatment and testing orders and counselling, assessment, referral, advice and throughcare services and to develop a system that is capable of engaging and retaining offenders with drug misuse problems in treatment.
	Workforce capacity is vital to delivering any service. The workforce in drug services is increasing ahead of schedule and exciting schemes are under way to engage young black and minority ethnic staff through the National Treatment Association apprenticeship scheme.
	Monitoring performance is absolutely essential, and the NTA and the Department of Health are working to strengthen monitoring systems to give a better picture of both successes and problems.
	In summary, treatment has been a Cinderella service. With new money, dynamic programmes and exciting initiatives at local level, we are getting somewhere. I hope that the Minister will agree with that. I do not pretend that all is well; many challenges still exist. As the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, said, it is not at all simple.
	I have tried to give examples of what is needed for long-term effectiveness in one area of drug policy treatment. I am sure that there will be similarities in other policy areas. I look forward to further discussions with noble Lords on these issues about treatment. Once again I thank the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, for his enterprise in raising this question.

Lord Chadlington: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, for introducing this important debate and for his excellent contribution. For my part, I wish to review some of the government initiatives addressing drug problems in this country and, looking to the longer term, suggest how some of them may be improved. I want to review a couple of successful initiatives from continental Europe and add a grace-note on the long-term problems associated with changes in the law regarding drug use.
	In doing so, as I have on other occasions, I declare an interest as chairman of Action on Addiction, the charity which specialises in research into the causes of addiction of all kinds.
	First, perhaps I too may underscore the progress that is being made in the fight against drug use. Of course, no initiatives are ever enough, but the Government deserve praise for many of the recent steps they have taken. Several of these initiatives have, by almost any short-term measure, been a success and are continuing to make inroads. The drug action teams, already mentioned, Positive Futures and Progress to Work are practical programmes which should be welcomed on all sides of the House. The variety of treatments on offer is also being expanded with considerable and consistent effect.
	Further, the Government have continued to increase the budget in the fight against drugs. Although I would of course like to see much more money being spent, there is still a significant uplift in expenditure compared with three or four years ago. For long-term success, however, that investment must continue to increase.
	In reviewing the overall policy, will the Minister please turn his mind to one or two areas in which improvements could be made? First, the long-term success of these policies is ultimately dependent on them becoming a part of local community life. Drug addiction hits at the local community, not only in the breakdown of family life but, as has been mentioned, with the 7.5 million crimes a year directly attributable to drug use. Could we not make these programmes more locally specific—managed, organised and, importantly, evaluated locally? To me, long-term success means genuine delegation to local communities, particularly in inner cities, to deal with the implementation and evaluation of the programmes, with central government holding a broad monitoring role.
	Secondly, if this policy of delegation was actively pursued vigorously, the problems of bureaucracy which bedevil so many initiatives may in part be eliminated. The Guardian newspaper recently reported a DAT in Bristol where the budget was £3.5 million, where there was a staff of six and a local client base of several thousand—but where staff spent 40 per cent of their time producing paper plans and reports for Whitehall.
	Thirdly, will the Minister also consider giving attention to the evaluation of these initiatives? Evaluation currently has too much to do with inputs—usually financial inputs—and not enough about outputs, how behaviour and attitudes are being changed in both the short and the longer term.
	Let me give an example. The Ofsted report on drug, alcohol and tobacco education in schools shows a marked improvement. In 1997, 86 per cent of secondary and 61 per cent of primary schools had drug, alcohol and tobacco education. By 1999, this had risen to 93 per cent and 75 per cent respectively.
	We do not know what effect this is having on either behaviour or attitudes. An evaluatory approach applies to all these initiatives. Output evaluation in the short and long term will enable us to direct our limited funds into the most productive areas. It will also help us to determine what does and does not work.
	I turn now to a couple of initiatives which I should like the Minister to address. I am actively involved in the problems associated with drugs in prisons and work with the Howard League in a number of these areas. Thirty per cent of prisoners on short sentences are heroin or former heroin addicts. There is still not enough being done to help in the transitional phase between prison and reintegration into the community. The Minister may well reply that "through care" and other initiatives are improving matters. They are, but not fast enough. The drugs-crime/drugs-crime cycle is getting worse. Heroin users who leave prison are 10 times more at risk of death from overdose on leaving prison, either because of lower tolerance or bingeing. That could be reduced in the medium and longer term, first, with better pre-release training, and, secondly, by making the antidote Naxalone more readily available.
	The second area which I should like the Minister to consider is that of injectable prescribing clinics. In both Switzerland and Holland those clinics have had some success. Containment should be an effective part of the Government's armoury in fighting addiction in the longer term. It is cheaper—as has been pointed out, three times cheaper—to pay for treatment, even if it does not lead to a drug-free life, than is a life of crime spent in and out of penal institutions.
	The third area is that of motivational interviewing in schools. A pilot study was carried out among 200 sixth-formers who were Ecstasy and cannabis users—the majority daily users of cannabis. The success of the scheme was to reduce usage by up to 50 per cent. That is now a well documented, output-evaluated technique which could have real long-term benefit among the young of today.
	Time allows me a final grace-note about the easement of the laws regarding drugs. I do not think that we know enough about the long-term effects of so-called "leisure drugs" such as cannabis to take that huge step forward. I have listened to, among others, the noble Baroness, Lady Greenfield, on the subject of cannabis use, and I have been convinced that there are real questions which still require answers. Will the Minister tell the House how the Government might initiate much needed research in this area so that we can make a wise, informed and considered decision? If such a conservative, research-based approach could precede changes in the law, we may save unnecessary suffering and that alone would make it an approach worth taking.

Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, in associating myself strongly with and endorsing everything that the noble Lord, Lord Chadlington, has said, I welcome also the initiative of my noble friend Lord Cobbold in securing this debate. It is, I think, the first on this subject in your Lordships' House since 1994.
	The University of York, in research for the Home Office, says that drug use and misuse, and the associated crime, costs the United Kingdom between £11 billion and £18 billion a year. If the economic costs are awesome they pale alongside the social and human costs.
	For 25 years, as a local councillor or Member of Parliament in another place, I represented wards and constituencies in the city of Liverpool where I saw drugs destroy whole communities. One response, echoed today, has been to call for legalisation. However, as the United Nations International Narcotics Board has observed acutely,
	"persons in favour of legalising illicit drug use argue that drug abusers should not have their basic rights violated; it does not seem to have occurred to them that drug abusers themselves violate the basic rights of their own family members and society. Families and society also have rights that should be respected and upheld".
	That is just another illustration of the clash between claimed rights and their consequences.
	Just six months ago in Liverpool I attended the funeral of a young man, a heroin user, in his mid-twenties. I have known his family for the best part of 20 years. His is not an isolated case. A few weeks earlier a 10 year-old girl from Ellel in Lancashire died after taking Ecstasy. Joseph began with cannabis and ended with heroin. Legalisation would not have saved his life.
	The American Academy of Paediatrics says that weekly users of cannabis are 60 times more likely to progress to harder drugs and that almost 100 per cent of heroin addicts started on cannabis. Joseph's mother is a supporter of the Coalition Against Cannabis, whose submission to the Home Affairs Committee in another place makes for sobering reading. Its submission and the learned views expressed during a symposium that I chaired in the Moses Room last year are underlined in the report Hidden Harm, which estimates that some 300,000 children are now being damaged by their parents' drug habit. We should not simply give in and go easy on drug misuse merely because it is so prevalent. We should abandon the dangerous sophistry of harm reduction and adopt instead a focused and coherent preventative strategy committed to a drugs free society.
	According to a survey by Life Education Centres, 86 per cent of primary school children believe that, following reclassification, cannabis is now legal; 79 per cent believed it was safe. Muddled and confused messages are putting children's lives at risk. The fact is that cannabis today is, on average, 10 times stronger than in the 1960s. The psychoactive ingredient of cannabis has increased from 0.5 per cent to over 5 per cent and brain cells are never clear of cannabis. The British Medical Journal suggests that cannabis increases the risk of developing mental illness, including schizophrenia, psychosis, depression, suicidal behaviour and anxiety. The risk of suicidal disorder is almost tripled. The same research suggests that young male users are five times more likely to be violent. Smoking it during pregnancy also harms unborn children.
	Professor Griffith Edwards of the National Addiction Centre says:
	"There is enough evidence now to make one seriously worried about the possibility of cannabis producing long-term impairment of brain function".
	The British Lung Foundation's 2002 report entitled Cannabis: A Smoking Gun? pointed to the level of carcinogens in cannabis. There are 50 per cent more than in tobacco smoke. As compared with smoking tobacco, smoking cannabis causes a threefold increase in tar inhaled. The report says that lung, head and neck cancers have been observed in young cannabis users. Those cancers usually occur in cigarette smokers in their 60s. Last month, Professor John Henry and other doctors from Imperial College in St Mary's Hospital said cannabis could be a major contributor to United Kingdom deaths, possibly killing more than 30,000 smokers each year. Our noble friend Lady Greenfield, in an article entitled The real dangers of Cannabis has pointed to the loss of educational opportunities caused as concentration, attention span, damage to brain cells, loss of interest and dampened potential, all emerge as the sad sequelae of cannabis use.
	The effects of the misuse of drugs on public health was well summed up by Philip Emafo, President of the United Nations International Narcotics Board. He said:
	"Cannabis is not a harmless drug as advocates of its legalisation tend to portray".
	The temptation has been to accommodate the drug in the hope that it might regulate drug misuse generally. It is instructive that, over the past 25 years, Sweden and Holland have followed diametrically opposed approaches. The UN Office for Drug Control noted that in Holland, acceptance of cannabis has seen,
	"hard drug use doubled. The strongest growth was observed for ecstasy".
	Holland's approach of harm reduction has led to usage rising from 15 per cent to 44 per cent among 18 to 20 year-olds. That point was made by the Home Office in the evidence submitted to the Select Committee in another place. Holland is also now perceived as a safe haven for drugs racketeers, and it is estimated that 80 per cent of heroin seized in the UK and France has passed through the Netherlands.
	By contrast, Sweden's drugs policy is based on the goal of creating a drug-free society. Drug prevention, education and the criminal justice system all work together to limit any use of illegal drugs. In Sweden, this radical approach has led to a much lower use of drugs of all kinds than in Holland. The overall lifetime prevalence of drug abuse among 15 to 16 year-olds is about 29 per cent in Holland and just 8 per cent in Sweden.
	Since the Lambeth experiment and reclassification, there have been reports of children as young as 10 getting stoned before going to school. The use of cannabis among teenage boys has risen from 19 per cent to 29 per cent—a staggering jump of 50 per cent. Some 79 per cent of teachers say that reclassification has made drug prevention more difficult.
	Having 48 different funding streams for drug treatment creates administrative overload. Eighty per cent of criminals in prison have drug problems and still have them when they leave. We even have drugs charities—such as Lifeline, funded by lottery grants—offering advice to young people about how to conceal drug taking from their parents and telling them how to inject heroin. The logo reads:
	"Better hits, healthier veins, healthier body".
	That is downright irreponsible, and I for one would like to know what the Government are going to do about it.
	So-called drug education can actually encourage drug use—and is no substitute for a programme of drug prevention. Deirdre Boyd, chief executive and editor of Addiction Today says:
	"Current drug education is at best worthless and at worse probably exacerbates drug use. Drug prevention work hardly exists".
	Public policy has sent out a worrying array of contradictory and confusing messages. There is nothing soft about drugs. They have harsh and often lethal consequences. Harm reduction does not work; working for prevention and a drugs free society does.

Lord Rea: My Lords, I would like to extend a warm welcome to the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, in joining the growing number of Members of both Houses who are prepared to engage in rational debate on drugs policy and to thank him for his well informed speech.
	I have several credentials for speaking in this debate. Apart from having been a GP in an area with substantial drug problems and co-operating with my local drug treatment unit over many years, I now have the privilege of being the honorary treasurer of the All-Party Group on Drugs Misuse. This is not an onerous job since the group has no money! I also think that I have spoken in most, if not all, debates on drugs in your Lordships' House over the past decade or more—I have lost count of exactly how many times that is. The last time was in February 2001, in a debate introduced by the noble Lord, Lord McNally, on the Runciman report.
	I cannot reply in detail to the noble Lord, Lord Alton. There is no time to challenge all his points. Suffice it to say that there are counter-arguments to almost every one of them. Many of the points that he set out as facts are not accurate. As regards the intellectual impairment of children, perhaps the noble Lord can say why it is that, every year, we see improved and improving A-level results when we know that up to 50 per cent of our children have been using cannabis.
	The Motion asks whether present policies have been effective. If that refers to a reduction in the numbers of drug users or abusers nationally, the answer is: well, no; certainly not yet. There may be a little flattening of the curve of increase, but this could simply be due to approaching saturation point rather than to any effect of policy. And internationally? Again, the answer is no—in fact, the illicit trade in drugs, both in manufacturing and in supply, is as buoyant as ever, especially in opiates in Afghanistan now that the Taliban has lost power, and also, I understand, in Morocco, until now better known for its cannabis resin.
	While there is no reduction in the supply of drugs reaching the country, judging by street prices, there have been some hopeful developments in treatment. My noble friend Lady Massey, who is chairperson of the National Treatment Agency, has described the rather encouraging developments in some of the 149 drug action teams that she is looking after. The criticism that I have of these is that they mainly have different funding streams, which can cause an enormous amount of confusion and sometimes delay in instituting desirable policies.
	In the treatment area, there is also a greater acceptance that the majority of opiate users who come into treatment are not ready to start a methadone reduction regime immediately, perhaps not for several years—and, in the case of a few, never.
	Long-term maintenance, sometimes on heroin itself, is necessary while attention is paid to underlying social problems, including housing, employment and the need for counselling about family problems by trained health and social workers. Interestingly, the fatalities associated with methadone are often associated with receiving an inadequate dose so that the user supplements the methadone with heroin, which may lead to an overdose. I am afraid that there are plenty of examples of the inadequate availability of treatment other than treatment for offenders. Their treatment, for now, is more readily available.
	In an article in the Big Issue two months ago, several homeless drug users in Bristol were reported to have considered getting arrested in order to get treatment for their addiction. Can my noble friend give us a bulletin on how drug testing and treatment orders are working? How many accept the option? How many of those complete the treatment offered and how many are still drug free six months or a year later?
	I welcome the relaxation of the law, which will enable certain GPs to prescribe heroin. However, that should be done only where the support services that I mentioned are readily available. Some GPs are already providing an excellent service in their practice for drug abusers. The treatment of problematic heroin users in that way has been shown in several studies—for example, in Switzerland and the Netherlands—to have great benefits both for the individuals and families concerned and for the community in that there is less crime and fewer hospital admissions. It has already been pointed out, as it was in our previous drugs debate, that the national treatment outcomes research study showed that for every £1 spent on specialist treatment, £3 was saved by society in healthcare costs, social security and prison places, let alone the value of the items that would otherwise have been stolen.
	Giving evidence to the House of Commons Home Affairs Committee last year, Professor Strang, who is professor of addictions and director of the National Addiction Centre, said:
	"With some types of treatment for some types of drug problems you have treatments which more than pay for themselves for each day the person is in treatment. This is the equivalent of the Post Office or the Bank of England releasing bonds which you can buy for one pound each and cash them in the afternoon for a fiver. I have to say that if that happened I would go out and I would buy, buy, buy. It is beyond understanding why that approach is not adopted with those bits of treatment where there is a rock sold evidence base that the benefit more than pays for the costs".
	However, apart from those going into treatment, there are many other heroin users out there who do not seek treatment. In this regard, I have a different set of beliefs from that of the noble Lord, Lord Alton. To don my legalising hat, I would argue that even more benefit could be achieved for society if all serious heroin addicts could obtain their supplies in the form of the pure product in known doses that were administered with clean needles from controlled legal outlets. That was possible, by prescription from certain GPs, in the days before the current Misuse of Drugs Act came into force 30 years ago. It is worth reiterating that when given in that way, heroin has remarkably few ill effects.
	On 30th October 2001, Rosemary Jenkins, who was then acting head of drugs and alcohol misuse at the Department of Health, said to the Commons Select Committee,
	"clean heroin is not in itself particularly dangerous except of course for the area we all know about which is that it is highly addictive and produces dependence".
	One could certainly say the same about cigarettes, which, however, cause much harm even when they are being used perfectly legally.
	It is interesting that heroin, which is thought by most people to be the most dangerous controlled drug, is actually one of the least harmful if administered safely. At present, the supply is in the hands of criminals who supply it in variable strength and purity. If injected, it is often given through contaminated needles risking HIV or hepatitis C infection. To that I simply say, "Long live needle exchange centres!". Cocaine and crack cocaine are likewise "pushed" in unknown strength, with consequent increased danger to the cardiovascular system. Deaths from cocaine and crack have risen rapidly in the past two to three years. There is a need for considerably more research into how best to treat addiction to these stimulant substances, of which crack is the most problematic.
	There is still an unhappy drug scene in prisons. It would be interesting to know what proportion of the prison population are there directly as a result of offences under the Misuse of Drugs Act. It would be even more interesting to know the proportion who are there as a result of crime committed as a result of an addict's need to buy drugs. What is the breakdown?
	That brings me to the international drug scene and to the Vienna meeting of the UN Commission. There, as has been said, the United Kingdom was criticised for relaxing its policy on police practice regarding cannabis possession. The UN Commission clearly upholds the American initiated "War on Drugs" which has been so singularly unsuccessful.
	I shall skip to my final paragraph. My noble friend may be aware that tomorrow a mass protest will be held by drug users' support groups outside the Thai Embassy and its consulates in many countries against the escalation in the killing of drug addicts in Thailand. Apparently, nearly 2,300 have been killed this year—42 by the police and the rest extra-judicially by persons unknown but thought possibly to be government inspired—in a campaign to,
	"eliminate all drugs by December 2nd".
	I suppose that could be regarded as a way to reduce demand, but I hope that Her Majesty's Government will register their condemnation of those barbaric acts and urge the Thai Government to bring to justice the killers as evidence of their non-involvement.

Lord Mancroft: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, for introducing the debate. I think the noble Lord, Lord Alton, told us that this is the first time that your Lordships have had an opportunity to debate the subject since 1994.
	As the noble Lord told us, there really are only two things that governments can do about drugs. They can either try to control the supply or try to reduce the demand. From the late 1960s onwards, Her Majesty's Government did both, but with an overwhelming emphasis—90 per cent—on the control of the supply. As the noble Lord told us, the main weapon was the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. That remains largely unchanged today. If your Lordships regard drugs, as I do, as the greatest social problem facing the country today, and one accepts that the world has changed quite a lot over the past 30 years, it is quite unusual still to be relying on a 30-year old piece of experimental legislation—because that is what it was—to deal with this very difficult problem. Most other governments in Europe and the United States followed our lead. We were the leaders at that time.
	As we have also heard, the international difficulties with the problem were recognised with the three United Nations treaties that we signed up to in 1961, 1971 and 1988. But the Government also recognised that they needed to provide healthcare. They did so, even though when it started it was fairly primitive, moralistic, psychiatric and so on. There was of course in those days no drug education and no drug prevention. Drug prevention had not even been heard of.
	Thirty years later the situation has changed. The noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, gave us some of the figures. Drugs are now the biggest social problem here in the UK. Heroin addiction has increased 100-fold; we have the highest number of drug deaths in Europe; 2 million people take Ecstasy every single week; and 25 per cent of our children have tried cannabis by the time they are 16 years old.
	The international drugs trade is worth £500 billion a year. That makes it the second largest industry in the world. As the noble Lord told us, York University research for the Home Office shows that it costs you and me—the British taxpayer—between £11 billion and £18 billion every year. However, it is worth noting that 88 per cent of that is the cost of drug-related crime.
	The international situation is as follows. The situation in the United States is worse than here and, interestingly enough, wheat has been replaced by cannabis as its biggest cash crop. The noble Lord, Lord Rea, told us about Thailand. Democracy in Colombia and Jamaica has been virtually destroyed. Those two countries have been brought to their knees by the war on drugs. Afghanistan is the largest producer of the opium poppy. All heroin on the streets of London comes from Afghanistan. The effect of the fall of the Taliban and the arrival of western troops is that the poppy crop has doubled—not an overwhelming success.
	There is a knock-on effect. During the past six years, gun crime in this country doubled to 21,000 offences by April last year—60 a day—of which 90 per cent are drug-related. Gang crime is 90 per cent drug-related. Black-on-black crime is 90 per cent drug-related. We have the largest prison population ever in this country—we have debated that in your Lordships' House three times since 1997. Well over 50 per cent of inmates are there for drug-related offences. We must remember that the Home Office was still denying the link between drugs and crime until the early 1990s.
	There is only one conclusion: drug prohibition has failed to reduce or eliminate drug use; it is still increasing. The Scottish Police Federation stated:
	"To many officers it is clear that outright prohibition under the Misuse of Drugs Act has been staggeringly unsuccessful".
	The failure of prohibition has led to the creation of the largest black market the world has ever seen, which has been the single biggest cause of crime in the Western world during my lifetime.
	The noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, told us that other countries have recognised that. Belgium, Luxembourg and Switzerland now accept cannabis use; Portugal, Spain and Italy have decriminalised it for personal possession; Canada, Australia and New Zealand are heading in that direction. Only the United Kingdom and the United States are pursuing policies in the opposite direction.
	Eighty per cent of government money is still devoted to prohibition; I am delighted to say that 20 per cent is devoted to a policy to reduce demand for drugs. As we have been told, money for treatment has increased from £120 million to more than £400 million a year. We welcome the creation of the National Treatment Agency.
	However, I must say that my chairmanship of the Addiction Recovery Foundation during the past 16 years leads me to believe that, although much improvement has been made, there is not really a great increase in places. There are 48 different funding streams for drug treatment in this country; how on earth can people find their way through that?
	I chair a day-care facility for drug addicts in Westminster. We contract to 32 local authorities across London. I think that we provide very good care. At present, 30 per cent of our budget is debt from local authorities that do not pay their bills, which means that we rely on bank overdrafts. That is unsatisfactory. I do not know whether the articles in the Guardian to which my noble friend referred are accurate, but if we really spent £3.5 million in Bristol getting 26 people from a possible market of 4,500 addicts off drugs, we cannot call that a success.
	There are some obvious reasons for that. Far too much treatment is channelled through the criminal justice system. I have absolutely no idea why anyone thinks that the Home Office should be in charge of healthcare. That is a ludicrous concept. Apart from that, it must be said that neither the Department of Health nor local authorities seem to know anything about drug treatment, which is why the care standards produced by the Department of Health last year had to be torn up. If they had been implemented, half the treatment facilities in this country would have closed overnight. That is not very satisfactory.
	We do not have enough aftercare—that is improving, but there is still not enough. Waiting times are improving but are still far too long. The noble Lord, Lord Rea, mentioned inappropriate prescribing; there is much too much of that. There is a lack of clarity. The Government are still the only organisation in the world who regard alcohol and drug treatment as different. No one else does. There is chaotic referral—most GPs still do not really know anything about it.
	Treatment works—it can work really well—but at present, for most people in this country, there is little chance of them entering treatment. If they get there, they will come out of the other end, end up back on the street and they will use. That is still the reality, but it may improve, and I must say that the Government are trying their best to improve it.
	The most important thing is prevention. If we can prevent people from starting to take drugs or delay the onset of use, that is a real step forward. I chair Mentor UK, which is the British branch of the leading drug prevention organisation in the world. Despite some encouraging meetings with government during the past three or four years, I must tell your Lordships that we are making little progress—well, we are making a little, but it is perilously slow. If the Government do not really start putting their back behind the issue, we shall have no hope of making progress.
	We need good, evidence-based, well researched prevention. The Government must give a lead, and they are not at present. The Government also need to work out that drug education is not drug prevention. As has been said, education by itself may even lead to an increase in drug use.
	What is the conclusion? Present policies are not delivering. Prohibition has not reduced or eliminated drug use and has created a massive black market and all the associated crime. Only the Government fail to recognise that. Other European countries, the British media, and public opinion increasingly believe that. The Government are still trying to use the criminal justice system as the primary tool to solve the health and social problem.
	However, we can agree about many things. All drugs are bad and we ought to reduce them. The one way that one does not deal with something that is dangerous and bad is to hand it lock stock and barrel to organised crime. That is what the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 does. The problem is not prohibition, the problem is the failure of prohibition. The only way that one can control a dangerous commodity or any commodity is to bring it within the law. We need to repeal the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 and replace it with a better and more appropriate tool that allows us to control the market in those incredibly dangerous commodities. At that stage we can remove the profit, remove the crime and devote all of our resources and energies to providing better treatment and real prevention. At the moment we are not doing that, and we shall not if the Government continue down their present path.
	Regarding what parents want—they worry about schools, their children's health and their futures. However, their main worry throughout the world is about drugs. Parents are not interested in Ministers being tough on drugs, they want Ministers to be effective on drugs. Parents want programmes to dissuade our children from taking drugs, and effective and accessible healthcare. We do not want our children treated as criminals. When they or their friends develop those problems we want healthcare and support. At the same time we are bored with the levels of acquisitive and violent crime which are a direct consequence of the Government's own failed policies and make it difficult to raise children in what is already a very nasty world.

The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, I also thank my noble friend Lord Cobbold for introducing this important debate. The subject is a matter that is not often raised in your Lordships' House. I shall concentrate my remarks on looked after children—children in public care—and how a policy can prevent them from becoming involved with the drug culture, the prevention to which the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, referred. Before doing so, I welcome Her Majesty's Government's acknowledgement in their Updated Drugs Strategy 2002 of the special vulnerability of care leavers to problematic drug use and the commissioning of a study into that area.
	Children often enter care against their will. The people who should have most cared for them, their parents, have often either neglected them or sought to harm them, either physically or sexually. Their parents may well have been unable to give them the ordinary love and attention that most of us have received. Those parents are often emotionally-maimed themselves. For example, the inquiry by the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs concluded that around two to three per cent of children in England and Wales had parents who were problem drug misusers. My noble friend Lord Alton alluded to that fact.
	Children cannot normally allow themselves to believe that they are unloved by their parents. A child might say that when his father beats him, he is not his father. When his mother beats him, she is not his mother for the duration of the beating. Such children may harbour great mistrust of the adult world. They are normally unable to channel their resentments directly at their parents. However, when they arrive in public care, looked after children often feel no such inhibitions with respect to their new carers. They can continue to idealise their own parents, their abusive or neglectful parents, while they find fault with, attack or provoke their new carers.
	A child may have lost not only his parents, but also his siblings, his friends, his school, or even his home country. He may feel pain and a sense of being neglected by those who should have most cared for him. He may experience rage, because the love that is so easily available to other children is not so to him. All of those fears and complex feelings may find vent in behaviour antagonistic to his foster carer, adoptive parent or residential social workers.
	Such a child needs trustworthiness and consistency above all from his new caretakers. Yet that child's very neediness, arising from his past neglect or abuse, may make him uncontainable and may cause the placement to collapse. Then, the original experience of rejection is repeated and the child's sense of worthlessness is reinforced. It is no wonder, therefore, that such children are at increased risk of involvement in drugs while in care or, later, as care leavers. They may take drugs to offend the adult world, to help them forget the pain of rejection or to harm or punish themselves—for they must often feel that they are bad and wicked if all those who should naturally have cared for them have rejected them.
	What then are the Government doing to support the caretakers of these children to prevent further breakdown of relationship and thereby to decrease the likelihood that such children will choose to take drugs? I welcome the work of the Choice Protects review under the Secretary of State, Jacqui Smith, with its objective of reducing placement breakdowns by improving placement choice. I am delighted that a £113 million Choice Protects grant has been secured to cover this year and the following two years, with the purpose of expanding and strengthening fostering services.
	Through statute and investment, the Government have demonstrated over the past six years an enduring commitment to these children. I salute the Government's efforts, which should have the effect of ensuring that more looked after children benefit from a secure attachment and a consistent, caring relationship with a particular adult during their experience of care. That is one vital element, together with access to education, in preventing so many care leavers falling prey to problem drug use.
	Once a child leaves care it is far more difficult to assist him. The containment implicit in care allows the fostering of a close relationship with a responsible adult. Children who have only known close relationships with adults to be tainted by bitterness may do all in their power to flee such relationships thereafter. A care leaver may be impossible to engage. It was depressing to read, in preparing for this debate, the comments on public care of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs. The council states:
	"There is also a high level of drug misuse and pregnancy among teenagers in care. It"
	—care—
	"should therefore be considered the option of last resort".
	Before concluding on this particular strand, I should like to stretch the discussion a little wider. My comments on children in care might be equally well applied to many of the other groups at particular risk of drug dependency. So I would offer this observation to the wider discussion of an effective long-term national drug policy. Treatment after the fact is very important, and the correct intervention beforehand is also important. However, any policy should at least acknowledge the emotional deficits common to many problem drug users and should indicate how policy fits with work to address the emotional deficits of at-risk groups. For example, it would be helpful to have a few short paragraphs indicating the importance of good parenting, of parenting support, of Sure Start and of the need to improve maternity services; and, indeed, to work generally to facilitate secure attachments and to improve early years provision.
	Is the Minister aware that there are far better outcomes for children in public care in some of the continental countries, with Germany ensuring that most of its looked after children receive the equivalent of a good clutch of our A-levels? Will he emphasise to his colleagues the continuing need for increasing public investment in this area, and to keeping improvements in services for looked after children at the top of Her Majesty's Government's agenda? To be effective in the long term, drugs policy should address the special vulnerability of children in public care.

Lord Best: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, for this debate, and for his important speech. I want to explore one small aspect of government policy on illicit drugs. It relates to the growing of cannabis by the people who consume it here in the UK.
	First, I declare my interest as director of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, which funds a programme of research on issues relating to drug and alcohol abuse. My foundation supported the recent inquiry led by Dame Ruth Runciman, to which the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, referred. My trustees have now agreed to allocate approximately £1 million for additional research in this field, not least because in an area of intense controversy we see a need for independent, impartial analysis outside campaigns for or against legalising or decriminalising aspects of drug misuse.
	While sharing the widespread concern for the individuals who suffer from drug addiction, we have a special interest in the impact of illegal drugs on local communities. Research points consistently to the destructive impact on local communities of drug dealing and drug dealers.
	When Joseph Rowntree set out the tasks to be pursued in spending his large charitable endowment he specifically mentioned the social evil of opium trafficking. Although I feel sure that he would have disapproved of the consumption of opium in the same way as he was a supporter of the temperance movement against alcohol, it was actually the trafficking to which he drew attention.
	In that context, I want to report to your Lordships the recent research that my foundation has funded on the slightly surprising subject of home-grown cannabis. Earlier this year we published A Growing Market: The Domestic Cultivation of Cannabis by the eminent Professor Mike Hough and his colleagues.
	It appears that as much as half the cannabis consumed in the UK may actually be produced in this country. While there are no firm figures, we know that a large proportion of the 50 per cent that is UK-grown is grown in people's own homes for non-commercial, personal consumption.
	The Home Office has announced that this particular drug is to be reclassified and its possession will be regarded as a less serious offence than in the past. The simple act of having cannabis in one's possession—surveys show that almost half the population under the age of 30 have consumed cannabis at some stage in their lives—will in future usually attract an on-the-spot warning, and the drug will be confiscated. But the user will not be arrested and will not, therefore, acquire the stigma of a criminal record. The maximum sentence for those charged with the most serious offences of possession will be two years' imprisonment. However, growing cannabis will continue to be a much more serious offence, punishable with a potential prison sentence of up to 14 years. If growers are charged with the offence of production, as often happens even for small numbers of plants, they will face a mandatory seven-year sentence for the third offence.
	While many offences will continue to be cautioned, or if prosecuted, fined, offenders in such cases will all receive a criminal record, as they do now. It is also worth noting that even a first offence involving cultivation for use and sale to one's friends—a frequent situation—is likely to result in imprisonment.
	A final important issue revealed in the report is the extent of confusion and variation surrounding the criminal justice processing of cultivation cases. The available guidance from the Association of Chief Police Officers appears to be unknown or ignored by many police forces, resulting in disparities in charging and prosecution. There is also evidence that similar offences are being dealt with very differently by the courts.
	The question I am posing therefore is whether the offence of growing small amounts of the cannabis plant should be regarded as less serious than at present. The research report from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation did not set out to draw conclusions of this kind, only to point out the facts. But in reading this document, I see a convincing case for taking a less harsh stand on the issue than is currently adopted. My reason relates primarily to the social evils associated with the international trade in illicit drugs and the drug dealing which brings very large numbers of, mostly younger, people into direct contact with the criminal dealers or pushers. While it is not true that all those who sell drugs are from the world of gangland and organised crime—and many are the addicts who are themselves victims of the process—nevertheless, all these drug dealers are part of a chain which quickly links back to the criminal underworld. Association with this network is not healthy.
	Acquiring cannabis on the streets, or in the clubs, from dealers and pushers can have a much more sinister outcome: it can lead to the individual being introduced to the far more damaging, very much more addictive, drugs of heroin and crack cocaine. Dealing in the so-called "soft" or "recreational" drug of cannabis can be used by dealers to secure addiction to the hard drugs which create a vicious dependency: this leads not only to the human misery of the individual but often to the waves of crime necessary to feed addiction on a daily basis, as many noble Lords have mentioned.
	Although it is but a small part of the story of drug misuse in this country, I suggest that as the Home Office considers its policies towards the possession and sale of drugs, it may wish to look at the law relating to home-grown cannabis. The imminent legislative changes on cannabis signal a clear distinction between possessing and dealing in the drug, with possession offences moving down the sentencing tariff and dealing moving up-tariff, attracting a maximum sentence of 14 years. If we want the 4 million current cannabis users in this country to stop buying their drugs from criminals and feeding the international trade in illicit drugs, perhaps we should recognise that it may not be so bad for them to grow it themselves. Some degree of decriminalisation would not offend the UN convention to which the UK is a signatory.
	A measure which underlines the link between cannabis and the pushing of the much more pernicious drugs such as heroin and crack cocaine would seem well worth exploring. Perhaps the Minister could comment on that.

Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, for introducing this important debate. I congratulate him on his masterly exposition of the problems associated with prohibition and the state of the international law. I also associate myself with most of the remarks of the noble Lords, Lord Rea, Lord Mancroft and Lord Best.
	This has been a very good debate. Many of your Lordships have pointed out what a vitally important factor hard drug misuse is in the fight against crime and how many lives are destroyed by it. Certainly, despite their good intentions and the hard work of thousands of drug workers on the ground, the Government's drug policies are failing abysmally.
	To their credit, the Government have increased the funding for the fight against drugs. For example, the budget for treatment has risen from £120 million to £438 million during the past three years. Sadly, however, much of this money is not reaching actual treatment, but I shall return to that matter later.
	The fundamental problem is the collision between the dramatic rise in the use of drugs and a policy that prohibits them. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, that drug users impinge on the rights of other people only when they steal, and they have to do that only because of prohibition.
	As the Guardian pointed out recently, there are two ways of reducing the drugs market: reducing the supply and reducing the demand. Unfortunately, despite the most basic principles of economics, the Government are concentrating on reducing the supply and punishing, by putting in prison, those who use drugs and steal to support their habit. Once in prison, they do not even receive effective treatment.
	The efforts by Customs and Excise at major ports and airports sometimes result in a large drugs haul, but Customs and Excise has admitted that it has no idea how effective it is being at stemming the tide. There certainly seems to be no shortage of drugs on the streets of even the smallest, sleepiest town or village in this country.
	However, even when the supply is reduced, that serves only to increase the price, because demand is not falling. Then the users have to steal even more to pay for their drugs, and crime goes up. Here is an example that was quoted in the Guardian. The National Economic Research Council two years ago estimated that the street market in crack cocaine was worth £1.8 billion and that users fund about 48 per cent of it through stealing goods, which are sold on the black market for about 20 per cent of their value. In other words, crack users are stealing at least £3.45 billion in property each year. On that basis, if the Home Office succeeds in reducing the supply of crack so that the price goes up by just 5 per cent it will inflict an extra £172.5 million-worth of property crime on the community it pretends to protect. Logic shows that that is not the way to do it. Reducing supply will be a disaster unless we also reduce demand.
	How can we reduce demand? There are two ways: prevention and treatment. I shall look first at prevention. It is vital that we do something effective to protect our children from the drugs culture. Indeed, Article 33 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child obliges us to do so. There is much evidence that drug use does not occur in isolation. It is therefore vital to target vulnerable young people and, as the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, said, to address the underlying social problems of poverty and deprivation that lead to drug misuse. The Government's revised drug strategy acknowledges that. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Chadlington, mentioned, it does not emphasise the importance of measuring and evaluating prevention efforts and intervention, and it does not commit enough resources to it.
	There is evidence from the Addiction Recovery Foundation that didactic lessons about drugs may be counter-productive and that it is time the Government adopted evidence-based strategies. Government bodies talk about advice from user groups, but these are usually composed of current users waiting for treatment. How much more effective drug education would be if it were delivered by former users who have recovered and learned from their effective treatment! We should be training more of them to deliver drug education, and we should be implementing more programmes such as those carried out by the organisation Mentor UK, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft.
	The Government are currently spending £3 million on the "talktofrank" website, which offers information and stories from family members, but not one story from someone who has actually used and recovered from drugs.
	That brings me to talk about treatment. Where do I start? It is in a terrible mess. Despite the increase in funding in the past three years, the number of beds has not increased. In fact, it has increased only marginally over the past 10 years. I understand that during the 1990s Turning Point closed four houses containing around 80 beds.
	As the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, said, there is much evidence that good quality treatment works, and that residential treatment works best. Here I must declare an interest, as a trustee of Adapt, a drug and alcohol treatment and rehabilitation charity, which delivers excellent results.
	The problem with drug treatment in the community is that the addicts are still surrounded by all the pressures and the pushers that got them into drug abuse in the first place. If we can get them away and through detox, when their heads are clear they are able to face the problems in their lives that made them turn to drugs in the first place. Through counselling and therapy they can begin to make sense of their lives and learn coping strategies which will stand them in good stead when they eventually go back into normal life. That should be done through a carefully graded set of stages, providing lighter and lighter support until the former addict manages a drug-free life on his or her own.
	Unfortunately, that kind of treatment is superficially expensive. I say "superficially" because if it works, which it does, it is much cheaper than 10 other cheaper programmes that do not. Unfortunately, there are nowhere near enough beds available for that sort of work. The capital funding to bring beds into operation is not available because all the money has been divided up among local drug action teams and probation services; and none of those is going to fund the £0.5 million it will take to bring into operation 45 extra beds at Adapt's Princess of Wales Treatment Centre at Mundesley in Norfolk since these would serve patients from all over the country.
	Where do we go to find the money to enable us to provide more of this much needed service? If noble Lords have any ideas, I would be glad to hear about them. The noble Baroness, Lady Massey, is nodding her head; I am most encouraged.
	Despite Adapt's excellent reputation and results, our beds are not full. Why not? We have heard about the complete mess that some of the drug action teams are in. There are 48 different funding streams for drug treatment. The DATs have an incredibly complex management structure. I was amazed when I saw this one from the Suffolk Drug Action Team, which is one of the best. It costs about £1 million. The teams spend much of their time collating data, reporting to the Government and the funders, and meeting targets. A DAT such as the one in Bristol quoted in the Guardian article that met its targets for the number of patients "participating in treatment" means nothing if none of those patients is successfully completing the treatment and leading a clean life.
	Despite the fact that research has shown that residential treatment is by far the most effective, there are still some DATs that will not pay for it. That is because of arbitrary targets and situations such as that which pertains in Nottingham Probation Service, whose money is held by the social services department. It has imposed an arbitrary limit on what can be spent, which cuts out good quality residential treatment altogether. Do we want just any treatment or do we want good treatment that works? It is all very well for the Government to announce increases in funding, but if it is being spent on management and bureaucracy rather than on treatment, it is a complete waste of money.
	It is ludicrous that the DATs report to the Home Office instead of the NHS, even though their money is held by the local PCTs. Drugs are a health and social problem, but they are being treated as a crime problem. If we treated drug addicts as patients rather than criminals, things would be different. I am sure that NICE would assess quality residential treatment as being a more effective way of spending money than producing more and more managers.
	One ray of light can be seen in the drug treatment and testing orders, although recently they have come in for much criticism in the press. They can work well so long as the ex-offenders are sent into a suitable treatment programme. Unfortunately, they have gained a bad reputation because some of them are operating in a very idiosyncratic way. For example, in Southend, in order to get into treatment, an ex-offender has to maintain a clean and stable lifestyle in the community for three months before he can obtain treatment. That means reporting in regularly and remaining drug free. Usually those people are living in hostels, while some are of no fixed address. The hurdle is far too high. One might think that if someone can get over it, they do not actually need treatment any more.
	Philosophically I was against coercion until I saw the results being achieved at Adapt with clients on DTTOs. They are better than those of other clients. I suppose because they all have the carrot of a better life, the DTTO clients also have the stick of going to prison if they do not stick with the treatment and succeed.
	Finally, I shall say a quick word about heroin prescribing, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Rea. I was delighted to hear that the Home Secretary was going to learn from the enormous success they have had in Switzerland with heroin prescribing, but devastated to learn that the proposal is to hedge it around with so much bureaucracy and regulation that only around 4,500 out of a potential 100,000 people who might benefit from this treatment will receive it. What a terrible missed opportunity.
	To summarise, I believe that we need to ensure that the funding streams are simplified and concentrate on intervention that has been proved to work rather than prohibition and punishment.

Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, I should like to add my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, for initiating this very interesting debate, which we are aware was well overdue in your Lordships' House. In agreeing with so much of what has been said by noble Lords, may I suggest an approach from a different angle, which nevertheless would be in many ways complementary? I am putting forward proposals first outlined on behalf of my party last October by my right honourable friend Oliver Letwin.
	We propose to address the problem of hard drug addiction by targeting not so much the existing users, but the new entrants which, of course, means young people. In formulating these proposals we have drawn heavily on the drug policies of two of the success stories of the European Union, namely, Sweden and the Netherlands. I am aware that I may not necessarily be singing from the same factual hymn sheet as the noble Lord, Lord Alton, but I pray in aid the report of the National Drug Monitor of Utrecht for 2001 covering hard drug users in the European Union plus Norway, in which the Netherlands comes third, Sweden fifth and, sadly, the United Kingdom is exceeded only by Italy and rather surprisingly, Luxembourg.
	As the noble Lord has said, treatment in the two countries is different, but they have three things in common. First, in both countries there is a strong consensus, including among the young, that the use of hard drugs is utterly destructive. Secondly, both countries have highly developed and highly accessible facilities for the treatment and rehabilitation of young offenders. Thirdly, in both countries coercive treatment is used. I was very interested in the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley.
	Turning to the first point, there is universal appreciation of the appalling dangers which arise from the use of hard drugs. But if there is awareness that heroin and cocaine are "loser drugs", and if that awareness can be sewn into the culture of the young, then the natural result will be that the number of new users will fall away. I am informed that in the Netherlands the average age of heroin addicts is rising by the year every year. If that statistic is correct, it means that that country is getting to grips with stifling the number of young people entering the habit.
	Our proposals for achieving the same results in the United Kingdom are two-fold and they are closely linked. The first is to replace the current de facto policy under which the use of hard drugs is effectively ignored unless it is related to other crime. We propose that a young heroin or cocaine addict is given the choice between undergoing treatment or facing criminal proceedings. The rehabilitation programme will include specific targets for the drug user to judge its success, and the young person's commitment to it. It will be followed by adequate aftercare. Failure to complete the programme will be punishable through the legal process in conformity with current drug laws. On completion of the rehabilitation scheme the minor will not have a criminal record. Even the hopefully small number who refuse treatment and are sent to gaol will have their record wiped clean at the age of 18 to allow them a fresh start
	All this is dependent on and closely linked to the second part of our proposals, which is the supply of a sufficient number of treatment centres. Sweden and the Netherlands each has 10 times the per capita supply of treatment centres available in the United Kingdom. It is a matter of urgency to increase the number of drug rehabilitation centres.
	We are attracted by the Minnesota model in the United States. There is a great deal of evidence that this approach actually works. It gets large numbers of people off drugs; it is widely used in the US, in the main by private providers. As its name implies, it was developed in the state of Minnesota which, not coincidentally, is heavily influenced by Swedish Americans.
	The model is based on the same 12-step programme that underpins Alcoholics Anonymous world-wide. Those key features include aims for the complete abstinence from all drugs except tobacco and caffeine; to end drug use completely at a discrete moment—that is to say, no weaning; intensive medical support for an initial period, usually one to three weeks. That is followed by intensive in-patient psychological support for a further four to 12 weeks and at least six months of less intensive support in the community. Finally, a social and expert support network is available for the rest of the participant's life.
	It is significant that one of the most successful of the institutions on the Minnesota model is Castle Craig in Scotland. That is private, but its clients are a small number of Scottish and English health boards or PCTs, and some foreign governments. Sadly, a large number of local authorities will not, as a matter of principle, refer patients to private or even voluntary institutions, choosing instead to refer them to the overloaded NHS where the facilities are limited. We would like to see a large expansion of centres under this model. We would certainly want to encourage participation by a large number of local authorities in the private and voluntary facilities.
	Concurrent with the expansion of treatment facilities we propose to launch a campaign to encourage parents, teachers and social workers to inform the relevant agencies when they encounter a minor who they believe is addicted to heroin or cocaine. We recognise that this will put a new onus on these groups to intervene at an early stage, but early intervention is crucial if we are to stop young people from joining the conveyor belt to crime.
	We do not expect to implement such a shift in attitude or resources immediately. Instead, we intend to run a large number of pilot projects to test the most effective ways of running such a programme. This piloting programme will be the world's first systematic testing of which drug treatments work and which do not. It will involve rigorous testing of all the various methods of treatment and extensive consultation with all relevant bodies.
	What will be the cost? At present, the average total unit cost of NHS in-patient treatment is £147 per patient per day, or £53,600 a year. This figure is derived from the Centre of the Economics of Mental Health. To achieve a tenfold increase in youth provision we shall need approximately 10,500 places, an increase of 8,600 beds at a cost of £462 million. This figure has been factored into our health budget. It will be to some degree self-financing through the saving in costs of treating illness associated with drug problems, and there will be indirect savings, as the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold said, in criminal justice expenses.
	We offer this policy as a radical way of tackling the drug problem of this country at the point of entry. I shall be interested to hear the Minister's comments.

Lord Filkin: My Lords, it has been a fascinating debate. It has shown the House at its best and the depth of experience that there is in the Chamber on these issues. I did not notice a consensus on the problems or the solutions—apart from the usual consensus that the Government have not yet cracked the problem and need to do more. That is to be expected.
	The noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, clearly set out the social and economic costs of drug misuse, which are estimated at between £10 billion and £18 billion a year in England and Wales. That graphically illustrates the scale of the problem.
	Drawing on evidence of what appears to work, the updated drugs strategy seeks to concentrate on the most dangerous drugs and the most damaged communities, recognising that 99 per cent of costs are accounted for by a quarter of a million problem drug users. The Government are tackling the drugs problem using a full range of measures based on what works—or, rather, what at this stage appears to work best given that there are no simple or easy answers.
	The essence of our strategy is to focus on young people. We want particularly to reduce the number of class A drug users and the frequent use of any illicit drugs by all young people under the age of 25, especially by the most vulnerable young people signalled by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel.
	In communities, we are trying to drive down drug-related crime by expanding and developing criminal justice interventions and the capacity of communities themselves to work to reduce illegality and drug taking. I shall return to this issue later.
	I do not believe that progress in tackling the supply of drugs is as impossible a goal as the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, signalled. Making some sustained impact on the drug crimes business at international, national and local level has to be part of a balanced strategy.
	As to the issue of treatment, which is massively important, the participation of problem drug users in drug treatment programmes will rise substantially over the coming years. There is a range of measures through which we have made progress but time will not allow me to cover many of them. Already 4,500 drug treatment testing orders have been made in the most recent year; mandatory drug testing in prisons is showing positive results, with a drop from 24 to 11 per cent in the last year of figures; and there has been a major increase in direct annual funding underpinning the commitment to tackling drugs.
	The noble Lord, Lord Chadlington, and others, spoke of the importance of increasing funding, wisely spent. Funding will rise from just over £1 billion for the last year to nearly £1.5 billion from April 2005, an increase of 44 per cent.
	We have clearly to inform our drug strategy by evaluation and evidence, and understanding the effectiveness of the drug policies, or different components of it at both national and local level. The first challenge to the Government's drugs policy—there were a number today—was by the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold. To legalise rather than to prohibit was one of the central debates. We are opposed to legalisation because all the evidence that we can see points to the fact that a massive increase in use would result. I shall not go into the evidence in the limited time, but where that has been tried that is what has occurred.
	The reverse evidence is that prohibition appears to have a deterrent effect. The survey evidence from MORI and others demonstrates that some people are deterred by the fact that it is illegal. Therefore, for those two fundamental reasons, we are opposed to it. We do not believe that it would lead to a reduction in organised crime; and a free-for-all, with drugs available to everyone, seems to us to be a nightmare.
	One should also recognise that these are not substances which have no effect on people's lives. Fifteen hundred-plus people died from drug-related deaths last year. Over and above that, drug use wrecks lives. It wrecks people's ability to work. It wrecks relationships in homes, families and communities. It is not a damage-free—

Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving way. Can the noble Lord tell the House how many people died from alcohol and tobacco last year?

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I cannot do so as regards alcohol, but I can recollect that from cigarettes the figure is about 120,000 a year. Is the noble Baroness asserting—I am interested to hear if that is what she claims—that because a lot of people die from smoking cigarettes (and we do not currently prohibit the smoking of cigarettes nor is it our policy to do so) that we should legalise the use of category A drugs? If that is her argument, I shall be pleased to hear it said clearly.

Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, I think that I can answer that. The Minister said that legalisation would produce a free-for-all. Those of us who ask the Government to reconsider prohibition certainly do not propose a free-for-all. We propose a tightly-regulated and controlled regime which would take away the need for people who need to use drugs to get involved with the criminal fraternity. By no means do we propose a free-for-all. We accept that these are very dangerous substances. I believe that if tobacco were discovered today, it would not be legalised.

Lord Filkin: My Lords, if the noble Baroness interrupts me much more, she will limit some of the questions that I have to answer in a fixed time limit. I am very pressed to cover all the points.
	The point I was making was that people die, but those substances also have a massive negative effect on people's ability to live a successful life, and on their families and friends. If it were a neutral policy, one would be more open minded to legalisation, but the Government are not.
	On international policies, UNGASS came in for some stick. No one claims that UNGASS policies are perfect. The UN conventions do not allow specifically for harm reduction policies and the UK would support calls for a review of the conventions to make the option of such policies easier. Therefore, we would support moves aimed at enabling the legitimate pursuit of evidence-based harm reduction measures more easily within the constraints of the conventions.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Massey, made a thoughtful contribution to the reality of the challenge to improve treatment. Clearly, whatever position one takes as regards legalisation—I think that most of us are opposed to it—one still has to face the importance of trying to find effective ways of treatment which are cost-effective. It is a key element of the Government's national drug strategy. We are on track to meet our target of an 8 per cent increase in the numbers presented for treatment. The investment in treatment is producing early results. We clearly need to do more, but I cannot speak at length on that, given the time that I have.
	The noble Lord, Lord Chadlington, made a thoughtful and powerful speech based on a lot of evidence from his work. I agree with him that the involvement of local communities and local agencies and their ownership of strategies to address drug treatment in their communities must be part of any sensible policy. It is a matter of getting the balance between central funding and local initiatives right; that is the challenge for the Government. That does not mean that one can abolish any form of monitoring, nor do I believe that he was arguing that. But we recognise that we must work closely with regional and local partners to minimise burdens on frontline staff, to support initiatives and experimentation and to roll them out when they appear to work. Knowing that one does not have all the answers, one must have a mindset that recognises that local innovation and experimentation must be part of the policy.
	On prisons and reintegration improvements, integrated teams are being built in each of the 30 areas with the highest drug-related crimes. Some £46 million to resource criminal justice programmes is going in from April 2003. We recognise the need for through-care and after-care. It is useless if there is not a continuous process of professionals and treatment, dealing with people in what can often be chaotic transmissions to different parts of the criminal system and their employment or housing. We have to challenge public agencies and professionals to make that more integrated.
	We decided not to introduce Swiss-style injecting rooms. They can present risks and attract dealers to the areas involved. We prefer the option of enabling doctors to prescribe heroin to those with a clinical need.
	There is a five-year research programme blueprint to evaluate the effectiveness of drugs prevention. One hopes that the early evidence from that is fed back into policy making. We are reviewing a range of direct education approaches, including motivational interviewing, and recognise its importance.
	I was in agreement with the argument of by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, in favour of putting an emphasis on the Swedish approach rather than the Dutch one. However, I differ from him in his comments on cannabis. It is an illegal substance and will remain so—that is the Government's policy—but we are seeking to make its categorisation reflect the reality of harm. I shall not respond now to some of the points that he made on misuse; I do not agree with them, but it is better that I deal with them in correspondence, given how time is pressing.
	The noble Lord, Lord Best, argued that the unauthorised cultivation of cannabis is a lesser evil. Our view is that it is illegal and should remain illegal. There are dealers who cultivate cannabis for commercial gain, and a full range of penalties needs to be available to the courts for those cases. It would be impractical to make a distinction in law between those who cultivate small amounts and those who cultivate on a large scale, but the courts are expected to, and have the discretion to take account of the circumstances of individual cases.
	Several noble Lords spoke on the crucial role of drugs education. The drugs strategy means preventing today's young people from becoming tomorrow's problematic drug users. That is the goal—I am not implying that it is that simple or that we necessarily believe that we have the right answer, but it has to be part of a balanced drug strategy. Almost all schools now have drugs education policies; there are programmes to support teachers' continuing professional education, and £21 million is being made available to support drug education in schools by the Standards Fund in 2003–04.
	The noble Lord, Lord Alton, said that the policy was ineffective and at worst encouraged use. It is not as effective as we want it to be, but we do not believe that it encourages use if it is properly done. I give the FRANK campaign as an instance of the Government's commitment to reduction of category A drug use. Research shows that campaigns that say, "Just say no", do not work without equipping young people with the knowledge to help them to make informed decisions about how dangerous that route is if they venture into it.
	The noble Lord, Lord Rea, asked a number of questions about drug treatment and testing orders. The percentage of the proposals for a DTTO that were converted by the courts into actual orders was 89 per cent; more than 54 per cent of orders have been successfully completed or are still engaging offenders with rehabilitative treatment. An evaluation of the three pilot schemes found that, on average, offenders committed 70 per cent fewer offences while on the order and reduced their spend on drugs by over 90 per cent. But these are early days. We have to continue to monitor the situation closely.
	The noble Lord, Lord Rea, asked about the Prison Service. Sixteen per cent of prisoners are there because they have breached the drug laws. There are no data on the percentage of prisoners who have committed drug-related crime, but 75 per cent of heroin and crack users do commit crimes; and, of those in prison, 4.5 per cent are opiate users.
	Certain types of rehabilitation programmes are undertaken in prison and record re-conviction rates as low as 30 per cent, compared to an expected 54 per cent. The Prison Service is benefiting from the SR2002 funding and intends to increase drug treatment and capacity, employ more drug workers and develop a low-intensity programme aimed at meeting the drugs misuse of those offenders who spend only a short time in custody and are therefore at risk—a point touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Chadlington. But a key gap has been identified; namely, the weakness in throughcare and aftercare, and a major programme is currently under way to address those issues.
	In response to a question from the noble Lord, Lord Rea, we deplore the human rights abuses in Thailand. I shall read the speech of the noble Lord Mancroft. It was based on considerable experience. To put it politely, it was a serious encouragement to the Government to do more. The noble Lord claimed that there was not sufficient aftercare. There has been a considerable increase. He said that treatment can work, but that there is little chance of getting on to such a programme. Waiting times are being reduced, and the targets for reducing them considerably further are in place. I totally agree with the noble Lord that prevention is massively important.
	A large part of the programme consists of targeted interventions with vulnerable young people. The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, and others signalled that drug use does not occur in isolation. It is frequently the product of some disturbance in the individual's lifestyle; therefore, one hopes that one has some ability to deal with some of the distress that leads people to take drugs rather than merely thinking that they can be treated mechanistically. So prevention programmes will be targeted at the most vulnerable young people and those who develop drug problems will be identified and supported early—it is to be hoped before problems escalate. Significant additional resources are going into such programmes. The Home Office will be investing an extra £107 million, and £28 million for local authorities to provide prevention treatment; and £30 million will be provided for prevention treatment and throughcare in juvenile custody institutions.
	Looking to a further element of prevention, Positive Futures has not been mentioned but is an instance of an initiative launched in 2000 in an attempt to make a difference to the lives of thousands of young people which have been blighted by drugs and to find alternative ways of challenging people into a better lifestyle than dependence on drugs.
	Several noble Lords made comparisons with Europe. The general picture in Europe is one of a stable endemic situation with constant recruitment and exit rates. The picture is one of a churn of people coming in and going out of drugs use.
	On the FRANK drugs information campaign, we see that the provision of accurate, honest information to potential drug users and their families must be part of any mature strategy. The FRANK helpline will be open 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, offering counselling in many languages.
	As to the interesting economic analysis advanced by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, we have found no evidence in any setting world-wide for the central claim that more action on supply leads to increased prices and more crime to fund drug use. By comparison, the Australian heroin drought in 2000 indicated that there was a substantial reduction in the consumption of heroin and a fall in expenditure among users. I am not claiming, however, that it will be simple to reduce supply; rather that it must be part of any balanced strategy.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, commented on treatment. We are on track to meet our target of an 8 per cent per annum increase in the numbers presenting for treatment since 1998. Waiting times have been reduced to 2.8 weeks for priority treatment, and to 8.3 weeks for non-priority treatment. That is a substantial improvement, but there is a further way to go.
	I shall read with interest the statement of Conservative policy set out by the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman. My initial reaction is that the flaw is that these problems need a variety of interventions. It is not a case of one size fits all. Furthermore, many young people at whom the policy is aimed have not developed a problem requiring residential treatment at this stage. Nevertheless, I would wish to study and reflect on it and will not dismiss it out of hand.
	In conclusion, we all recognise the scale of the problem. Most noble Lords recognised that there is no major or miracle solution; there is no one quick fix. The process will require persistent effort; the involvement of communities; experimentation with new methods when old ones do not appear to be working; an evaluation of new methods; and, when we find new methods that work, I hope that there will also be deterrence, education and treatment to roll them out. Undoubtedly, that will require an holistic approach, which is what the Government seek to roll out, that looks at the major elements in a co-ordinated manner to treat supply, demand, treatment and education in a balanced package.
	It has been a privilege to listen to the debate and I was grateful for the chance to respond, although I have not done so as fully as I would have wished.

Lord Cobbold: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who participated in this debate, particularly because it took place so late in the evening and during the dinner hour. As I said in my opening speech, strong views have been expressed on both sides of the argument. We all agree—there is no doubt about this—that drugs are dangerous and the whole situation is very tricky. We could argue, as noble Lords have done this evening, about the relative merits of different treatment methods, the availability of different treatments and the value and success rate of educational programmes. I strongly believe that the main problem is criminality, as the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, said. I thank the noble Lord in particular for his support—he spoke in both debates this afternoon and has had a busy day.
	I was very disappointed by the Minister's response. It appears that the Government's mind is still totally closed towards decriminalisation. He mentioned the availability of evidence for a massive increase in use but was not prepared to say where that evidence came from. He did not answer my request about whether the Government believe that their policies are actually working. Nor was he prepared to say that the Government would do more work—

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt. I shall certainly write with the evidence to explain why we believe that decriminalisation will lead to an increase in use. We believe that the policies are working, although we are being modest about the rate and movement of them. We are not making heroic claims for them. This is a difficult subject.

Lord Rea: My Lords, will my noble friend send that information to all noble Lords who have spoken?

Lord Filkin: Certainly, my Lords.

Lord Cobbold: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that remark. I look forward to seeing what he will send me.
	Once again, I thank all noble Lords who participated. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Race Relations Act 1976 (Amendment) Regulations 2003

Lord Filkin: rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 8th May be approved [20th Report from the Joint Committee].

Lord Filkin: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Davies of Oldham, I beg to move that the draft regulations laid before the House on 8th May be approved.
	The draft regulations are made under Section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972. They implement the UK's obligations to prohibit discrimination on grounds of racial or ethnic origins under Council Directive 2000/43/EC—"the race directive". Their approval is important in enhancing our existing legislation and in ensuring that everyone is able to contribute to the best of their ability to the society in which we all live.
	I shall start by briefly setting out the context. The race directive flows from Article 13 of the Treaty of Amsterdam and is being implemented in tandem with the EC Article 13 Employment Directive, which introduces new anti-discrimination legislation in employment in the fields of sexual orientation, religion and age, as well as amending the employment provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act. The UK was a key player in negotiating this legislation, which introduces a common minimum standard of legal protection from discrimination across Europe, and we welcome the result.
	The implementation of the two directives has been the subject of extensive discussions with stakeholders over the past three years. Since the adoption of the directives there have been two formal consultation exercises in the UK: first, Towards Equality and Diversity, and, secondly, Equality and Diversity: The Way Ahead. These regulations and those implementing the employment directive have been informed by the comments and detailed suggestions received in submission to those exercises.
	There are certain principles that the directive requires the UK to import into domestic legislation, in this case into the Race Relations Act 1976. The principles we are incorporating include widening the definition of indirect discrimination, shifting the burden of proof from complainant to respondent and introducing the concept of genuine occupational requirements.
	I should explain here that the amendments we are making extend across virtually all the areas covered by the Race Relations Act. That is: employment, training, education, the provision of goods and services and the provision of housing. The race directive is wider in scope than the employment directive, which covers only employment and vocational training.
	The regulations will widen the definition of indirect discrimination so that there will be more circumstances in which claims can be brought. Informal practices will be brought within the scope of the legislation. A new definition of "harassment" as a form of direct discrimination will be introduced. At present, the courts consider harassment to be a form of discrimination, but we have taken the opportunity to formalise the position.
	The regulations also shift the burden of proof from complainant to respondent, so the emphasis will be on the employer to prove that he did not discriminate. Up until now the emphasis has been on the person alleging that his employer had discriminated against him proving his case. Now, once an employee has established a prima facie case that would lead a court or tribunal to presume that there has been discrimination, the respondent—normally the employer—will need to establish that the action taken was not discriminatory. If the respondent fails to do this, the court or tribunal will rule against him. That will only come into effect once the individual has made a convincing case. A respondent would not have to disprove an accusation of discrimination by a complainant who has no plausible evidence to back up his or her claim.
	The regulations will introduce the concept of genuine occupational requirements. A genuine occupational requirement is when a job can genuinely not be done appropriately unless it is done by a particular kind of person. The genuine occupational requirement provision applies a more generic approach, leaving it for a tribunal to determine whether there is a requirement. Unless there is a genuine occupational requirement, discrimination in employment will be considered unlawful.
	These amendments will, in broad terms, also apply in respect of the equality strands covered by the employment directive.
	The race directive requires that we remove exceptions in the Race Relations Act which are contrary to the principle of equal treatment. That involves specific changes to the Race Relations Act and increases an individual's protection from race discrimination. At present, partnerships of five or fewer partners, landlords who dispose of and manage small dwellings, charities in their role as employers, UK employers and training providers who recruit from abroad, and private household employers are exempt from the Race Relations Act provisions.
	These enhancements, and the others we are making, widen the areas in which claims can be brought, making it easier for individuals to bring claims and to demonstrate that race discrimination has occurred. The regulations will apply on the grounds covered by the directive—discrimination on the grounds of race, ethnic or national origins.
	As the directive, to a large extent, mirrors the Race Relations Act, the changes we are making to the Act could be described as minor and technical. For all that, they will be important. Their net effect will be that our existing legislation will be enhanced and that individuals will have improved access to justice.
	General compliance costs to businesses linked to the implementation of the race directive should be minimal, as many businesses will already have in place policies and systems that are in line with the directive's requirements.
	The Government are pleased to take forward these regulations, which will further strengthen the Race Relations Act and follow hard on the heels of the Race Relations (Amendment) Act, which is making a real difference to racial equality.
	The UK leads the way in respect of protection from racial discrimination and implementing the directive further enhances that protection. I am pleased to move these amendments, which are an important step in achieving our aim. I commend the regulations to the House.
	Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 8th May be approved [20th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Filkin.)

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I begin by thanking the Minister for his explanations. It is right that I should put on record an observation. We begin to debate a significant piece of secondary legislation after the hour of ten o'clock, the time at which, under the new rules agreed by the House, business is expected to conclude. Managers will obviously have to consider that in the future; certainly, Members of the House will do so when considering the review of proceedings. The principle alleged to be behind the regulations is of course one that we would all accept—how could we not? As the Explanatory Memorandum states at paragraph 4:
	"The Directive lays down a principle of equal treatment between persons, irrespective of racial, ethnic or national origins".
	The problem arises as soon as one considers the manner in which the Government seek to give effect to that principle by adopting a process of harmonisation.
	Effectively, the regulations reverse the burden of proof in race relations employment tribunal cases—and do so by secondary legislation. That is unacceptable. Instead of an employee having to prove that he or she was treated in a racist manner, employers will in future have to prove that they did not act in such a way.
	Paragraph 41, referring to the burden of proof, states:
	"the tribunal shall uphold the complaint unless the respondent proves that he did not commit or, as the case may be, is not to be treated as having committed, that act".
	Indeed, the burden of proof will be reversed not only for new cases brought after the regulations take effect but for cases that have already started.
	The regulatory impact assessment states that the UK already has extensive legislation prohibiting discrimination on the grounds of racial or ethnic origin. The Minister also referred to that. The impact assessment then states that, therefore, compliance here is more about fine-tuning existing legislation than introducing new provisions. That is the first time that I have heard something as significant as reversing the burden of proof referred to as fine-tuning. I hope that it is the last. We object to the reversal of the burden of proof and therefore do not support the making of the regulations.
	However, I have some questions on the content of the regulations, which are strictly, as one would expect from me, the observations of a layman. I am delighted to see the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, on the Liberal Democrat Front Bench. He will bring a more educated, lawyer's approach to the matter. It is tempting to ask a legion of questions, because so many parts of the regulations are likely to lead to confusion and a lack of transparency, but at this late hour, I shall restrict myself to six issues.
	First, paragraph 3 inserts a new Section 1A into the 1976 Act that contains the new definition of indirect discrimination. Can the Minister explain how the word "particular" in paragraph (a) should be defined? The regulations state:
	"Discrimination occurs if one applies a practice that puts or would put a person at a particular disadvantage when compared with other persons".
	How is that particular disadvantage—as opposed to a disadvantage—to be measured?
	Secondly, paragraph (b) adds that the employer has to show that the practice that he has adopted is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. How will the proportionality be measured? Against what or whose standard?
	My third question refers to the new concept introduced in paragraph 7, to which the Minister referred: the exception for general occupational requirement. Can the Minister give the House an example of the types of employment that the Government have in mind? I notice that it is not acceptable for there simply to be an occupational requirement that the employee should be of a particular race or of particular ethnic or national origin. Other restrictions also apply to the employer. He or she must be able to show that it is proportionate to apply the exemption in the particular case and that it is not reasonable for the employer to be satisfied that the applicant satisfies the occupational requirement.
	All that is convoluted and seems fraught with uncertainty and difficulty. How can an employer demonstrate what is proportionate and that it is not reasonable for him or her to be satisfied in the circumstances? The obscurity gets worse when one reads the regulatory impact assessment. That makes the point at paragraph 11.1 that charities will be hit by the provision for the first time. The Government acknowledge that, in effect, that will prevent charities that target support to particular disadvantaged racial groups from being able to recruit staff from the same group to act as support workers. I find that appalling.
	The assessment then makes an astonishing statement. It states:
	"One way to allow charities to continue to select staff on this basis would be to allow them to rely on genuine occupational requirements when recruiting staff for particular posts".
	"One way"; then why do the regulations not make that crystal clear? Why should charities have to depend upon fiddling the interpretation of the new regulations to clear themselves in cases brought against them? Would it not be better to have clear legislation that means that cases would not be brought against them in the first place?
	My fourth question refers to the requirement for member states to ensure that procedures are available for individuals to enforce the directive's obligations. As the Explanatory Memorandum tells us, the 1976 Act already contains comprehensive provisions allowing for the enforcement of the rights of individuals. However, it goes on to point out, and I use the Minister's word, that these procedures are being "enhanced" by the regulation that requires respondents to respond to a questionnaire served by a complainant within eight weeks. Failure to respond within that time or the provision of an equivocal response may lead a court or tribunal to infer that discrimination has occurred.
	I note that that is transposed into the regulations at paragraph 47, headed, "Period within which respondent must reply". Why have the Government decided to enhance the procedures and why did they light upon eight weeks as the magic moment? Is that eight-week deadline applied across the rest of our colleagues in Europe? What is their method of enforcing that part of the directive?
	Fifthly, I note that the implementation of the regulations will be brought to the notice of the public by guidance. When? I understand that the regulations go live on 19th July.
	Finally, I note that the regulatory impact assessment takes a complacent attitude—I can think of no other way to describe it—to the costs of the likely changes by stating repeatedly that since most employers have had to follow the Race Relations Act 1976 for so long, making one more leap will not give them too much trouble. That of course will be a matter that can only be proved once the regulations are imposed. But even the regulatory impact assessment acknowledges that partnerships of fewer than six people will feel the draught. They are brought into the system for the first time. The regulatory impact assessment makes the prediction that even if only 0.29 per cent of newly covered partnerships have to defend a case at employment tribunal this will cost them £3.5 million. I suspect that smaller partnerships will argue that the cost to them will in practice be proportionately higher since it is even more difficult for them to cope with the bureaucracy involved in tribunal cases.
	The regulatory impact assessment also acknowledges that the smaller partnerships are likely to have to bear the brunt of a further £3.5 million for compliance costs. The regulatory impact assessment states at paragraph 2.2 that the Government are taking a "light touch" approach to the implementation of the directive. Heaven preserve us from a heavier touch. I do not support the making of the regulations.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, this morning the Government announced the commissioning of a review into the health and safety hazards of "nanotechnology"—the science of the very small. Although I do not share at all the criticisms that have just been made by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns, from the Conservative Front Bench, these flawed regulations are an example of politically-driven nanotechnology as applied by the Government to equality legislation, and of the hazards that they will create in the effective enjoyment of the fundamental right to equal treatment without unjustifiable discrimination.
	One hazard of nanotechnology is known as "grey goo"—an amorphous and unsightly mess. That is not a bad description of the regulations before us, and what we will have in the other equality regulations next week and beyond. I have a particular interest in the subject because I had the privilege of assisting Lord Jenkins of Hillhead as Home Secretary in developing policy in what became the Race Relations Act 1976 and Sex Discrimination Act 1975. I also introduced the Equality Bill that was recently approved by this House and has received massive support among more than 220 Members of the other place.
	The Government are to be commended for having supported the making of the equality directives under Article 13 of the Treaty on European Union. I do not share the root and branch attack on the regulations that we have just heard. There is, as we approach night, no time to consider all of the examples. I therefore take just one example to stand for all—the burden of proof issue. Article 8 of the directive is quite clear about the burden of proof. It does not contemplate a reversal of the burden of proof; it contemplates a more even-handed sharing of the burden of proof. That is exactly what Regulation 41 does. For good measure, that is what the courts for years have essentially been saying should happen in gender discrimination cases and in race discrimination cases under existing legislation. It is also what has been done for women and men who have been victims of sex discrimination as well.
	So I do not think that there is anything in that kind of criticism, in just the same way as some of the other criticisms that have been made of these regulations could equally be made, if they were correct, as regards gender discrimination legislation and disability discrimination. I would be astonished if the Conservative Front Bench would dare to attack gender and disability discrimination in the same vehement terms that we have heard today.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I am being taken to task by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, but I am not attacking any concept of equality—I made that clear in my opening remarks. I am attacking the way in which the Government are going about it. My assault is upon them, not upon equality.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I had thought that the attack was on the particular proposals in these regulations. I am saying that those proposals are in well-established discrimination legislation dealing not only with colour and race but also with other types of unjustifiable discrimination. There is nothing very novel about any of this. Indeed, I will be criticising the regulations from an entirely different perspective; namely, that the Government are, I think, to be criticised for having decided to implement the directives not by coherent, consistent, accessible, joined-up and user-friendly primary legislation, but instead to proceed by way of piecemeal and disjointed delegated legislation—that is to say, by means of statutory instruments made under Section 2 of the European Communities Act 1972: a "nanocratic" decision that will disfigure the existing body of anti-discrimination legislation.
	That nanocratic decision was taken last year for short-term reasons of political convenience. It means that the Government do not have to consider how best to remake the existing tangled web of anti-discrimination legislation, a pressing need so long signalled by the equality agencies and by independent experts. It means that parliamentary time is used instead to enact the endless flow of criminal justice and other Bills produced by the Home Office law factory. Incidentally, I have still received no answer to a Parliamentary Question tabled on 9th May seeking to discover the extent to which those consulted argued for the use of primary and not secondary legislation. I very much hope to receive that reply before next Tuesday when we deal with the last batch of these equality regulations.
	The defects in that misguided approach are exemplified in these regulations as the Commission for Racial Equality—I am so glad that the noble Lord, Lord Ouseley, will be speaking as a distinguished and powerful former chair of that body, the public guardian of the Race Relations Act 1976—has pointed out. I have written to the Minister giving notice of some of my main concerns so that he is able to deal with them in his reply this evening rather than in correspondence at a later stage. This is our only chance as legislators to probe the Government's intentions on these important matters before the regulations become part of the law of the land.
	By using Section 2 of the 1972 Act, the Government and Parliament are narrowly circumscribed in what can be done to amend the Race Relations Act. The powers conferred by Section 2 go no further than what is required to transpose the directive into our internal law. That is the main source of the incoherent and inconsistent amending regulations that we are asked this evening to approve. Perhaps I may give just one example—the burden of proof. How can it make any sense whatever to have a different burden of proof in employment discrimination cases than in education or housing discrimination cases on the basis of colour or race? It makes no sense whatever. However, it is part of the general pattern of legislating in this area, without any respect for internal coherence.
	In my letter to the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, I raised the following as particular concerns. First, the Race Relations Act 1976 covers discrimination on the grounds of colour, race, ethnic or national origins and, with the exception of immigration functions, nationality. The new definitions of indirect discrimination and harassment, the shift in the burden of proof and the new exception for genuine occupational requirement in the regulations will apply only to discrimination on the ground of race, ethnic or national origins, and not colour or nationality. How can the Government avoid that resulting in confusion and potential injustice to applicants who may not know whether they are being discriminated against by reason of their ethnic origin or their colour?
	Surely the CRE is right in stating that it is,
	"illogical to implement the principle of equal treatment by providing for greater protection from discrimination on grounds of race and ethnic or national origin but not colour. The principal trigger for racially discriminatory behaviour is frequently colour: discriminators will seldom know the victim's ethnic or national origin and sometimes not the racial group but 'colour' is a visibly different characteristic".
	The CRE is surely also right in stating that the regulations will,
	"create more complex and confusing legislation for individuals, employers, businesses and the public sector and the new public duty to promote racial equality. In particular, the . . . Regulations . . . will create a two-tiered structure within the 1976 Act".
	Does the Minister agree? If not, why not?
	Secondly, the new provisions, such as the new definition of harassment, the shift in the burden of proof, and so on, will not apply to many functions of public authorities—for example, police functions, such as stop and search, arrest and detention, functions of the immigration service and the enforcement or regulatory functions of local authorities. I have asked the noble Lord whether the Government accept that this will create widespread confusion among those carrying out public functions, with the result that they will not know which standards apply to which functions. How will such confusion be avoided in practice?
	Does the Minister agree with the CRE's assessment that the regulations,
	"will inevitably result in increased litigation to clarify the law with financial consequences for businesses, complaint aid organizations, including the CRE, and the courts and tribunals"?
	I certainly agree with that view. If the Minister disagrees, I should be grateful if he would explain why this is not likely to be the undesirable practical outcome.
	Thirdly, the regulations do not apply to many of the functions of public authorities imported into the Race Relations Act 1976 by the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000. That is another example of what will be a two-tiered structure. Does that not inevitably mean that the resulting complexity in the legal framework will make it very difficult for public authorities to comply with their new statutory duty under the recently amended Race Relations Act 1976? Again, if the noble Lord disagrees, I should be grateful if he would explain why this is not the likely, and undesirable practical outcome?
	Fourthly, the fact that these provisions have been implemented through regulations rather than primary legislation will inevitably lead to an even more complex and opaque legal framework. Given the time-scale involved, I appreciate that primary legislation cannot now be introduced in time to implement the directive. But will the Government give serious consideration to the proposal that the regulations should be introduced as temporary provisions prior to the introduction of a single Equality Bill, or a new, modernised Race Relations Act? That would address the differences between the directive and existing primary legislation and provide equal protection on the grounds of colour, race, nationality or ethnic or national origin, and in respect of all public functions. If not, when do the Government intend at last to grasp the nettle and remake the anti-discrimination legislation enacted more than a quarter century ago?
	Eighty years ago, FM Cornford published his well-known guide for the young academic politician, in which he examined the argument that,
	"the Time is not ripe".
	He explained:
	"The principle of unripe time is that people should not do at the present moment what they think right at that moment, because the moment at which they think it right has not yet arrived".
	It saddens me that the Government are so timorous and lacking in ambition in this important area. It dismays me, frankly, that they are still so far from fulfilling their bold 1997 election manifesto promise to tackle unjustifiable discrimination "wherever it exists". I look forward to the Minister's considered and full response this evening to the concerns that I raised in advance. I hope against hope and experience for some assurance that the Government will at last accept that the time is ripe for coherent, comprehensive, accessible equality legislation that can be enjoyed in practice to be introduced and enacted.

Lord Monson: My Lords, I do not want to blame the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, who is in no way personally responsible, but, as the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, said somewhat more politely, it is pretty deplorable that regulations as important and controversial as these should not be considered until well after 10 p.m. At least yesterday's disability regulations of a similar order of importance came before the House at about half past three.
	What is so disgraceful about all these EU regulations we are discussing this week and next is, as the noble Baroness said, the enforced abandonment of our ancient tradition of "innocent until proven guilty". The accused will now be deemed guilty, albeit guilty in the civil rather than criminal sense, unless he or she can prove otherwise.
	Whatever the Government may say in public, I expect that they must agree with me in their hearts. Otherwise, they would have automatically introduced this radical change off their own bat some years ago without waiting for the EU to bully them into doing so. After all, the Government have been in power for more than six years.
	Incidentally, what demand has there been from the ordinary citizens of the EU for the introduction of this unfair practice? Virtually none, I suspect, as I am sure a referendum or public opinion poll across the EU would reveal. As with so many "euro-laws", as one might describe them, the whole thing is driven by a small group of no doubt sincere zealots. Perhaps that is a tautology as zealots are by definition sincere.
	The whole of page 3 of last Sunday's Sunday Telegraph was devoted to an expose of a Nigerian gentleman who claimed that he had been discriminated against 72 times. He lost 70 cases and won a partial victory in only two, but his actions have so far cost businesses, hospitals, local government and the police more than £0.5 million in legal and other costs. One can predict that if these regulations become law, such cases will mushroom, spurred on by lawyers who encourage grievances.
	I have no personal axe to grind, but why are partnerships included—that is, tightening up the law—as partnerships have nothing to do with any employer/employee relationship? Do similar laws in other EU countries extend—

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that partnerships have been covered by anti-discrimination law for more than a quarter of a century; in the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 and in the Race Relations Act 1976 as well as in the Northern Ireland legislation?

Lord Monson: My Lords, yes, I am well aware of that and I shall turn to that in a moment. As far as I know, the EU directive refers only to employment laws. Therefore, why are these regulations being used as an excuse to extend the power to impose further restrictions upon partnerships? Do similar laws in other EU countries extend to partnerships, or is this another example of gold-plating by Her Majesty's Government?
	It was, after all, a previous Labour government—and this answers the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill—more Left-wing than the current Government, which deliberately excluded small partnerships of between two and five individuals in Section 10 of the Race Relations Act 1976. How sensible they were. After all, there are many all-Jewish partnerships. One often comes across firms of solicitors with names such as Goldman, Levy, Katz and Greenberg. Why on earth not? Why should they not form all-Jewish partnerships? I dare say that there are a number of all-Bengali or all-Gujarati partnerships. Why on earth not? But it looks as if they will now be outlawed.
	I finish with a story I heard first-hand less than three weeks ago. I happened unexpectedly to meet at lunch a couple who said that they were thinking of emigrating. As they were in their late forties or early fifties, and I knew that they still had dependent families, I tentatively inquired why, upon which they revealed that they owned a small science-based firm which normally employed only graduates, such being the skilled technical nature of the work required. But having social consciences—they did not use that expression, but that is what I deduced from their general demeanour—they one day took on a young lady of Caribbean origin who had no degree, but who they thought was bright and might fit in and learn reasonably quickly.
	Initially the young lady seemed to do very well, so they promoted her. It was a total disaster. She was simply not up to the job. So, not wanting to disappoint her or hurt her feelings, they created a somewhat invented job for her, at the same higher salary as she was receiving post-promotion. Notwithstanding that she suffered no financial loss, the girl, encouraged no doubt by grievance-fostering lawyers, claimed that her pride had been hurt by the sideways move and launched an action based on alleged racial discrimination.
	Although the couple think they have a good chance of eventually winning, such has been the emotional and financial cost of fighting the case that they are thinking seriously of winding up their business in Britain and starting up somewhere abroad, to the great disbenefit of this country. Once the burden of proof has shifted, we may expect more of this sort of thing.

Lord Ouseley: My Lords, for the best part of four decades we have led Europe in the way in which we have tackled race relations, with the introduction of legislation, and our enforcement machinery which is the envy of many states across Europe. It is a great tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, that he was an architect of that legislation, supporting Lord Jenkins of Hillhead when the latter was Home Secretary.
	Britain's role has been honourable in helping to support the development of the European directive, which is important in that it provides protection for residents right across Europe in a consistent way. In many cases our own citizens have the same level of protection in other parts of Europe, and the directive will help to give at least a greater degree of consistency of protection for those who may be the victims of discrimination.
	Back in 1965 we ended colour discrimination. At that time signs were very evident all over Britain saying "Rooms to let"—or "Job vacancies"—"No blacks, no coloured, no Irish." It seems to me that in 2003, with these regulations, we are going backwards. Despite what the Minister said about the Government's widespread consultations on the regulations, it would appear that no one listened to what people were saying.
	In bringing forward secondary legislation at this time of night, the Government cannot be forgiven for wasting the three years that they have had to prepare and introduce primary legislation to strengthen our existing legislation. It is very disappointing that they have chosen to submit weaker and confusing regulations.
	The Government have known exactly what the negotiated provisions mean, but instead of meeting the spirit of the directive—the establishment of the principle of equal treatment for all—they now purport to follow the directive to the letter by adopting a minimal approach to implementation. Not only will this approach create an unworkable law, it also fails fully to comply with the directive provisions. Instead of adopting fully the wording and definitions of the directive, the regulations change phrases arbitrarily, leave out crucial bits and thus do not comply with the spirit as well as the letter of the directive.
	Despite the Government's commitment to bringing forward legislation that is clear, concise, comprehensive, effective and simple to interpret and to enforce, these regulations will unnecessarily produce an increasingly complex and complicated framework which will be confusing, difficult to understand and therefore difficult to use. This means that they will achieve just the opposite of what the Equality Bill promoted by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, intended: a simplification of our equality laws which was welcomed by Members of this House.
	The regulations will create a two-tier framework with two grounds of discrimination and key areas of material scope excluded from the revisions. With regard to the material scope and the omissions, the key areas of immigration and policing—that is, the enforcement and regulatory functions—are not included in the regulations, which means that in effect the Race Relations Act will be split into two.
	The recently enacted Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000 remedied the defect that existed for over 25 years by incorporating those functions within our existing legislation. But in so far as these regulations apply, they will now be excluded. That is bizarre and inexplicable. Are we to approve regulations that will permit immigration and police services to escape taking responsibility for the harassment of people simply because of their race? Surely this anomaly must be addressed.
	That brings me to the grounds of discrimination. Race as well as ethnic origin are both included in the regulations, but colour and nationality are omitted. The exclusion of colour seems entirely arbitrary, as the directive's stated purpose of combating racism and xenophobia, along with its broad reference to race and ethnic origin, very likely encompasses colour. The Government did choose to include national origin as falling under the directive's definition of race and ethnic origin, so it is unclear on what basis colour can be deliberately excluded, especially when it forms an integral part of our own existing definitions. That is arbitrary, irrational, indefensible and—dare I say it?—racist.
	The regulations will introduce an equality hierarchy if they remain in their present form. There is the distinct likelihood of increased litigation to clarify the law, with financial consequences for businesses, for the Commission for Racial Equality and for trade unions which provide legal assistance to victims. There is a lack of adequate sanctions. No attempt has been made to ensure that sanctions are effective, proportionate or dissuasive, as required by the directive. For example, tribunals could be given the power to order remedies to correct a wrong that has been perpetrated.
	Then there is the possible non-compliance of the race regulations with the race directive. Taking the indirect discrimination provisions, the definition in the regulations departs from the wording of the directive at crucial points. One effect is that the anticipatory challenges to an indirectly discriminatory practice will not be possible. Rather, action can be taken only once an individual victim has already suffered a disadvantage. The regulations require a person to be an actual victim, whereas the directive permits cases to be brought even before someone experiences an individual disadvantage. In the absence of a directly affected victim, it will not be possible to challenge an indirectly discriminatory policy, criterion or practice.
	The second point on indirect discrimination is that indirectly discriminatory practices will still be possible when deemed "appropriate" and "legitimate", whereas the directive requires additional tests of "objective justification" and "necessary" aims. Surely this cannot be acceptable and is contrary to the principle and the letter of the directive.
	As regards the issue of genuine occupational requirements, the directive would replace the list of employment exemptions in the existing Race Relations Act with a strictly defined general exemption which must show evidence of being legitimate and proportionate. The regulations fail to adopt the full strict definition of the exemption by omitting that the objective of such an exemption must be "legitimate". Moreover, the regulations add "dismissal" to the scope of this exemption. That amounts to a violation of the directive's non-regression clause as there are currently no exemptions for discrimination in dismissal procedures in the Race Relations Act.
	I move on to harassment. The regulations separate harassment from discrimination whereas the directive clearly says that harassment is a form of discrimination. This can have negative consequences for the victims who go through a continuum of harassment and discrimination and who encounter time limits when lodging complaints.
	The provision on harassment introduces a "reasonable person" test. What is that? It is that harassment will be acknowledged as such only if it can "reasonably be considered" to have adverse effects. Such a test effectively perpetuates prejudice and indirect discrimination because a "reasonable perspective" is likely to refer to a spurious "average", the traditional standard which is characteristic of the dominant majority population, that of white middle-aged males whose presence, incidentally, still dominates our tribunals and courts. Inevitably, such perceptions differ from those of people who are often most affected by harassment.
	These regulations defy belief when set alongside our track record of leading Europe in outlawing racial and other forms of unjustifiable discrimination. It is clearly incumbent on the Minister to explain what representations have been made during the extensive consultations. What representations have been made by the Commission for Racial Equality, for instance, and why have these been rejected?
	These regulations are too deficient to be approved. The Government should look at them again before taking them any further.

The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I take exception to something which the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, said. The exception I take is to the accusation that we on this side of the House would not have objected to the measures in these regulations had this been discrimination in any other form. As they have been shown to be flawed, not only by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, but by the noble Lord, Lord Ouseley, it would be an insult to our intelligence to suggest that if similarly flawed regulations were introduced on sex discrimination or other discrimination we would not have objected. I certainly would have done so on exactly the same grounds as I object to these regulations.
	However, one must always give a little and take a little. I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Lester, on the need for genuine, all-purpose equality legislation. It makes much more sense that there should be a general right of equality, a general right not to be discriminated against and a new Bill. I completely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ouseley, and with the noble Lord, Lord Lester, that these regulations are flawed in themselves. They are over-complicated and they should not have been introduced at this time of night. These matters should be dealt with by primary legislation.
	I suggest to your Lordships that this country has some of the best race relations in all Europe. Try being a Turk in Hamburg; try being an Algerian in Marseilles or in some of the scruffier parts of Paris. I was driving home yesterday fairly early. Some schoolchildren were leaving a school in Wandsworth. It was a racially mixed school. It was a pleasure to see the children walking along, talking to each other, with no form of discrimination in their bones at all. That is the level which race relations in this country have reached.
	There are cases of discrimination and they are not necessarily white on black or white on brown. One of my favourite fishmongers is in Chinatown. There was a notice outside saying "New sales assistant required: Mandarin essential". Many school leavers from inner London schools could get a perfectly decent job in an English fishmonger and, with a little bit of training, would be able to sell cod. But those who speak Mandarin would, I assume, come from only one racial minority.
	It is interesting that there is a society of black lawyers. If there was a society of white lawyers the noble Lords, Lord Ouseley and Lord Lester, would be jumping about with rage like peas in a banshee bucket—justifiably so. There is a society of black policemen. If that is not racist, I do not know what is. It strikes me as being racist.
	Having said all that, the English—I use the word advisedly—I hope, are sufficiently tolerant and sensible to say that, even though it is racist, it is not unreasonable to have a society of black lawyers because it is trying to produce fairness in this world.
	I am lucky enough to go sailing at Cowes. Your Lordships may ask what race relations have to do with Cowes. I went onto a boat called "Drumbeat", which had been owned by Lord Beaverbrook—Maxwell Aitken—and was now owned by an ex-sergeant in the Royal Engineers who was half-Jewish and half-Ghanaian and had made a fortune out of property. He had a crew of New Zealand rugby players to make sure that his racing was successful. That situation at one end of the social scale and the school at Wandsworth at the other shows how successful is the general ease of race relations in this country.
	Of course we must not be complacent—it can all go wrong—but I am told that paragraph 41 of these regulations—I have taken a certain amount of advice—is the first legislation to change the burden of proof in the way that it does, certainly by regulation. The people I asked—one was a judge and the other was a distinguished legal correspondent—had not been briefed, but neither of them could think of a case involving this kind of reversal of the burden proof.
	I was always told that it was scientifically impossible to prove a negative.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, in the light of the speech of the noble Earl, perhaps I may clarify what I said. I am not suggesting that the Conservative Opposition has double standards and is not attacking disability and sex discrimination legislation but only race discrimination legislation. I was seeking to say—the noble Earl's point about the burden of proof illustrates this—that the way in which the attack has been mounted today could equally be made on the sex discrimination and disability discrimination regulations, but there has been no similar attack by the Conservative Party upon them.
	As to his point about the burden of proof, paragraph 41 of the regulations simply states that if the complainant proves facts from which the tribunal could, apart from this section, conclude in the absence of an adequate explanation that the respondent has acted unlawfully—that is, something like a prima facie case—then the burden shifts to the respondent to show that the act was not done on unlawful grounds.
	That is a well-established concept in English law of the shifting of the burden. It has been applied in sex discrimination legislation under European law and it is being applied here under race legislation. I do not understand the Conservative Opposition to be attacking it in relation to sex equality legislation but only in respect of this legislation. If they attack it on the grounds of both they will be equally wrong, but they will be consistent.

The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, the reason that I did not tack that on is that I did not have the faintest idea that it was being introduced on the other issue. I read about the matter, thought that it was wrong and still think that it is wrong. I am still not convinced that turning the burden of proof upside down by regulation is not a "first" and it is a wrong "first".
	The Government have a tendency to tyranny. On Monday, we shall hear about hearsay evidence, the reduction of trial by jury and all kinds of nasty things which I, as an old-fashioned person who likes the concept of the protection of English law for subjects of the Crown, find deeply offensive. Her Majesty's present advisers are too prone to that tendency.
	That is why I dislike the measure. I do not think that this reversal of proof is a measure which any government should be proud to introduce. I agree that we should have proper equality legislation. To demonstrate how difficult it can be to define what is an ethnic minority, perhaps I may say that my great-great-great-grandmother was a Negro slave in Jamaica; and my great-great-aunt was a daughter of Tullachdan of Aude. When my great-aunt was vicereine of India, they met. She saw him. He said, "My name is Gardner", to which she said, "We must be cousins".
	I am deeply disturbed by these regulations. It is an achievement for the Government to have united against them the noble Lord, Lord Lester, the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, the noble Lord, Lord Monson, myself and the noble Lord, Lord Ouseley. It means that the Government are not thinking and are introducing the provision in a sloppy and haphazard way.

Lord Filkin: My Lords, the first of the questions by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, was on the burden of proof. The burden of proof does not shift to the respondent unless and until the complainant proves facts from which the tribunal could conclude, in the absence of an adequate explanation from the respondent, that the complainant has been unlawfully discriminated against. In simple language, if it appears on the facts of the case put forward that there is a case to answer, there is an expectation and a responsibility on the person against whom the complaint is made to answer that complaint if they wish to defend themselves from the presumption that something that should not have happened has happened. If there is no prima facie evidence of race discrimination, the tribunal will dismiss the case as at present. There is no question of a respondent having to prove an unsubstantiated accusation.
	The situation is not new. Employment tribunals have been applying the revised rules on the burden of proof in employment cases under the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 since October 2001. Therefore, tribunals should be well acquainted with the principle involved. We see nothing that is fundamentally wrong with this. The title "reverse burden of proof" perhaps over-dramatises in ways that may slightly mislead.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, also asked about time limits. The time limit of eight weeks for a respondent to reply to the complainant is in part a question of complying with the directive. It is the directive's requirement to provide an appropriate redress to complainants. It is consistent with the approach taken in respect of the regulations implementing the employment directive.
	The noble Baroness also asked about "particular disadvantage". The phrase reflects the wording of the directive. It means that the complainant must show that the provision criteria or practice concerned causes a significant disadvantage to his or her racial group which would not be suffered by persons of comparable racial or ethnic groups.
	On proportionality, it has to be shown that if the provision criteria or practice cause a disadvantage, the application of the provision criteria or practice needs to be proportionate to the aim that it pursues. That means a judgment of whether it is appropriate to achieve the aim and necessary to do so. That includes consideration of whether there are less restrictive means of achieving that aim. I hope that that explanation will seem a statement of virtual common sense, rather than anything more contentious.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, also asked whether the provision set down obscure and incomprehensible tests—on proportionate application, for example. Genuine occupation requirement is a narrow exception and it is important that it be drafted in the strictest terms to show that the requirement is applied proportionately. In order to clarify the application provision, employers are given the choice of showing that the requirement is not in fact satisfied or, where that is not clear cut, to show that it is reasonable for them to consider that it is not satisfied. That will assist employers and tribunals in the practical application of the legislation.
	On the impact on business, we have sought to implement this directive and the employment directive so that they have an eye to each other. We recognise that employers will be under a duty to respond to both directives. Therefore—although it has met some criticism tonight—we have sought to take in parallel the processes by which they would be implemented, trying to ensure a joined-up approach as far as possible, to minimise unnecessary regulatory burdens on business. However, it is my experience that most businesses in Britain take a positive approach to the importance of race equality measures and legislation and are alive to the business case for so doing.
	As a result of the changes by the directive, charities will be subject to the same employment provisions in the Race Relations Act as other employers, in relation to discrimination or harassment on grounds of race or ethnic or national origins. That change has been welcomed, because it will make the approach to employment in the Race Relations Act more consistent. That will prevent charities that target support to particular disadvantaged racial groups from being able to recruit staff from a particular racial group, unless they can demonstrate that there is a genuine occupational requirement. Charities will be able to rely on genuine occupational requirements when recruiting staff to undertake certain posts or roles where the post holder needs to be of a particular background. They will continue to be able to rely on the existing exemption to the provisions of the Race Relations Act when recruiting staff who need to be of a particular nationality, as grounds of nationality are not covered by the changes.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, asked when the guidance would be produced. It is our intent to produce a leaflet and guidance by the end of June so that advice is available to employers or others in that respect.
	It is with regret that I find that I have not completely satisfied the noble Lord, Lord Lester, on the way in which we have handled these important measures. The House is aware of his leadership on equality legislation. However, I shall do my best to respond to his specific questions. He asked about the 1976 Act, which covers discrimination on grounds of colour, race and ethnic origin, and the new definitions of indirect discrimination and harassment, which will apply only to discrimination on the grounds of race and ethnic or national origins.
	The short answer, which I do not pretend will fully satisfy him, is that we are fully implementing the race directive. We are satisfied that we are by these measures fully implementing it, and we are doing so by the due date. As such, we are making changes that will benefit those bringing claims within the scope of the directive. The criticism from the noble Lord, Lord Lester, and others, is not that we have not implemented the directive but that we have not gone further than the directive to extend the directive's benefits to all other elements of our race relations legislation. I hear and acknowledge that as a statement of fact. However, we are making changes that will benefit those who are bringing claims within the scope of the directive. Those bringing claims that are outside the scope of the directive will not have suffered any detriment as a result of the changes that we are making. Courts and tribunals will of course have to come to terms with the provisions; that is often the case.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I am grateful for that answer, but there is something that I do not understand about it. The race directive itself, as the noble Lord, Lord Ouseley, indicated, refers to grounds of racial or ethnic origin. Would the Minister not agree with me that, if someone is discriminated against on the grounds of racial or ethnic origin, in ordinary common sense language that would include their colour? When someone is the victim of a colour bar, would we not all say that that person is the victim of racial discrimination? So I do not understand why the directive is not being implemented more faithfully to include colour bars as well as other forms of racial discrimination. Will the Minister deal with that point?

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I can deal with it to the best of my ability as a non-lawyer as compared with the noble Lord, Lord Lester. Our understanding is that the directive does not apply to discrimination on the grounds of colour, and that it specifically includes discrimination on the grounds of nationality. That is our understanding and interpretation of the directive: it does not apply to colour—hence the difference that the noble Lord has raised.

The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, how does anyone allow a directive to be passed which says, "You can't do it because you're West Indian, but we're not going to complain because you say you are black". That merely seems stupid. Why do we pass such legislation?

Lord Filkin: My Lords, perhaps I may further address the second question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lester. We do not expect that we are creating widespread confusion in this area. The new statutory definition of harassment, for example, mirrors the concept which has been developed through case law. We do not consider that it will be unduly difficult for the courts or public authorities to determine whether the provisions of the directive apply to particular functions.
	It is already clear that functions of public authorities that constitute the provision of goods and services are covered by the directive. Courts may, in some circumstances, have to determine whether a particular function falls within the directive. Our discussions across government, however, have led us to the conclusion that this is unlikely to cause significant problems. Again, of course, we are fully implementing the directive.
	Perhaps I may give an example. Our view is that functions such as social work, benefit payments and social inclusion would constitute—

The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, will the Minister answer my question as to why there is this difference—this lack— regarding colour and race? He has done what I have seen Ministers of all parties do. When asked a difficult question, he has stuck his head down, got his neck into his collar, read his brief and hoped that people will ignore and forget what they have asked. Please will he answer the point about the difference between colour and race?

Lord Filkin: My Lords, the question that I heard from the noble Earl was: "Why is legislation of this type passed?"—to which there is not a particular focused answer. The directive was passed—

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I wonder whether I might interrupt the Minister. I think there has been a genuine misunderstanding. I think that my noble friend was seeking to agree with the noble Lords, Lord Ouseley and Lord Lester of Herne Hill. He was not questioning the need for this legislation per se. He was questioning the disparity between a definition including a reference to nationality without referring to the word "colour". He was trying to agree with both noble Lords who raised that point and felt that perhaps the Minister had not adequately responded. I hope that that assists the Minister. From my knowledge of my noble friend, I believe that that is exactly what he was trying to present.

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I shall do my best again to respond. My understanding was that the noble Earl was asking why colour was not covered in the directive but race was. There, I am in some difficulty, because the directive was passed in 2000 and I was not party to it. I have no knowledge of the negotiations. I can do my best to research the matter, but I am not in a position now to give an answer as to what happened at that point in the negotiations. I shall do my best to see whether I can find a fuller answer and write to the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, on that point.

The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that answer. It is such a relief when someone says: "I don't know the answer. I shall go away and find it". That is always appreciated. I am sorry if I have been slightly beastly to the noble Lord. I thank him for that last intervention.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, when the Minister does his research, will he note that the preamble to the directive contains a reference to the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination that includes colour? It was plainly contemplated by the makers of the directive that colour should be included. The definition in the international convention is the one in the Race Relations Act and the one in international human rights law. So, although I put it very politely, I respectfully submit that the Government have been badly advised on that important issue. If it could be looked into, I should be very grateful.

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I am glad to give an undertaking to do so and to press the point strongly. I shall respond in parallel to both noble Lords and to other noble Lords who have raised the issue, which to my recollection included the noble Lord, Lord Ouseley.
	The third question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, was about the regulations not applying to many of the functions to public authorities which were imported into the Race Relations Act 1976 by the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000. Again, we do not think that public authorities will be caused undue difficulties. Although not all public functions may be within the scope of the directive, many are. In any event, the new statutory duty applies to all forms of unlawful discrimination whether they are unlawful by virtue of the original provisions of the 1976 Act, by virtue of the amendments made to that Act by the 2000 Act or by these regulations.
	Public authorities will not therefore have to take a significant number of new issues into account in complying with the duty. We do not anticipate that the regulations represent a significant burden, if any, to public authorities in this respect.
	On the fourth question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, regarding whether this provision will inevitably lead to more complex and opaque legislation and on the question of a single equalities Bill, the Government welcome the noble Lord's Bill as a major contribution to the debate on equality. However, as he knows, and I am sure does not celebrate, we are not at this point in time of the view that a single piece of legislation at this stage would be appropriate.
	Equality legislation is constantly evolving. Our view is that an incremental approach to implementing equality legislation allows us fully to think through the implications at each stage. We shall be indicating our thinking on a single equalities body and making public how the Government intend to move forward on that. I hope that we can make that clear before the summer.
	However, I have heard the comments that have been strongly argued from at least three points in the House about whether this legislation will be complicated to implement. I repeat that the directive is being fully implemented in our judgment. Therefore, we are fully in compliance with the directive by the timetable it sets.
	The argument has been made that the issue may be more complicated by using secondary rather than primary legislation. I shall commit to monitor the situation. We will look at evidence from the CRE, from practitioners and elsewhere so that we are in a position to track if there are difficulties experienced which in our own judgment are greater than those we have concluded will be the case.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I promise the noble Lord this is my last interruption. I wonder whether he will consider one further point. He mentioned in his important speech that the Government were looking across horizontally at the framework directive and trying to get it and the race directive internetted in a similar way.
	Perhaps I may put this point for further thought by him and his department. The difference in the race directive is that it applies beyond the employment field. The Government have levelled down to the framework directive—for example, so far as concerns the burden of proof—in a way that means that it is lightened in employment cases but not in other cases, even though that is not what the directive says. That is a good example of not giving full faith and credit to this directive because the Government are concerned about broader considerations in the framework directive. I should be grateful if that could be looked at as well.

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I shall certainly undertake to look also at that. What I was seeking to express was not exactly as put by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, that we were seeking to implement the provisions in exactly the same way legally, but to think about the consequences and the processes of their implementation on the end target—the employer—to try to see where as far as possible, consistent with a duty to implement each of them, one could do it in a way that would make the regulatory burden on business less rather than more.
	In conclusion, on that general point, before turning to one or two others, I wanted to say that we shall monitor the situation to see whether there were problems with its implementation and look to rectify any inconsistencies that resulted when a suitable opportunity arose.
	The noble Lord, Lord Monson, also raised the charge that we were being bullied by the European Union in that respect. In fact, Article 13 was not a product of the European Union bullying us but, if anything, the European Union taking the basis of British race relations and seeking to use it as a platform to apply to other European Union countries. That is in part why we have taken the view that the impact on us of the directive is relatively minor compared with the impact on most other European member states, which have had to pass substantial legislation to bring themselves into compliance with it.
	The noble Lord, Lord Monson, also asked about the issue of partnerships. The directive covers partnerships in Article 3(1)(a), which sets out the scope of the directive and refers expressly to access to self-employment. A partnership that refuses to admit a person to be a partner on the basis of his race will be in breach of the principle of equal treatment laid down in the directive, which is why it has been included.
	The noble Lord, Lord Ouseley, made a strong, trenchant and painful criticism of the Government. It is doubly painful to hear them from him, given the leadership to race equality that he has given in his previous roles. Nevertheless, without necessarily answering every question, we believe that we are fully complying with the directive.
	I shall address one or two more points and then make a general concluding comment. On the issue of indirect discrimination, Article 7 requires a remedy to be available to persons who consider themselves wronged. Individuals who respond to discriminatory advertisements but do not gain employment, for example, will still be able to bring employment tribunal proceedings alleging discrimination in recruitment and will able to rely on the new burden of proof provisions in support of their case.
	In theory, it will also be open to an individual who had not responded to a discriminatory advertisement—because the advertisement had discouraged him from applying—to bring tribunal proceedings. However, such a person may be unlikely to want to bring proceedings and, if he does, will not necessarily be successful because, if he did not apply for a job, he will have difficulty proving financial loss; or may have difficulty showing as a matter of law that the employer discriminated against him as an individual; or that the employer is under a duty to make adjustments where he does not and ought not reasonably to know that the person might be an applicant.
	The current arrangements ensure that the CRE can take a strategic approach to discriminatory advertisements, while also being able to act against persistent offenders. I have answered the noble Lord, Lord Ouseley, with respect to our firm view that the directive does not apply to discrimination on grounds of colour. I hope that he will bear with me if I have not covered all his points, but there are one two others that I should cover.
	On the definition of harassment, subsection (2) of new Section 3A makes clear that when considering whether the conduct has the effect of violating dignity, tribunals must take into account all relevant circumstances, including the perception of the complainant, but it will be regarded as harassment only if the tribunal is satisfied that the conduct complained of should reasonably be considered as having that effect. So trivial incidents would not constitute harassment, even if the complainant genuinely believed that his dignity was violated.
	We do not accept that that definition goes too far. The provisions reflect the judgment of the Employment Appeal Tribunal in the case of Driskel v. Peninsula Business Services, decided in 2000. Employers should not be found guilty of harassment just because the complainant thinks that he has been harassed. Subsection (2) of new Section 3A does not apply to conduct intended to violate dignity; that would always amount to harassment, irrespective of perception.
	The only other comment that I want to make to the noble Lord, Lord Ouseley, is that although he is more than disappointed about how we have implemented the directive, I reaffirm that the Government's commitment in practice to drive race equality and equality of opportunity in our society is as strong as that of any government has ever been.
	The mechanism of the law may not be in exactly the form that the House may have ideally wanted, but we will use the law—the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000 and the framework agreement—in what I hope will be a vigorous and intelligent fashion to try to ensure that we deliver race equality in our society in ways that will deliver significant improvements to people in Britain. I commend the regulations to the House.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Regulatory Reform (British Waterways Board) Order 2003

Lord Whitty: rose to move, That the draft regulatory reform order laid before the House on 28th April be approved [19th Report from the Regulatory Reform Committee].

Lord Whitty: My Lords, the order will amend the Transport Act 1962 and the Transport Act 1968 by adding to, and clarifying, the British Waterways Board's statutory powers, and will enable the board to participate more fully than it can at present in the public/private partnership known as Watergrid.
	Watergrid is a joint venture between British Waterways, the public corporation that runs the UK's 2,000 mile canal network, the water services and infrastructure management group Anglian Water Group, utility provider Bristol Water Holdings and Partnerships UK. It is one of the first projects to be taken forward under the Government's Wider Markets Initiative to create better value from public sector assets by utilising private sector expertise and funding. Watergrid will supply industrial, commercial and property development customers alongside the inland waterways with sustainable water solutions. These will include bespoke water treatment, wastewater treatment, recycling services and environmental consultancy based on individual customer needs.
	The amendments proposed in the order will give the British Waterways Board additional powers to abstract, purchase, treat and sell water, and to treat and dispose of effluent. They will also clarify that the borrowing of a company formed by the board—but which is not its subsidiary—does not count towards the board's overall borrowing limit.
	The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs consulted widely on the proposal last year. It was generally welcomed as a means of raising additional income for the waterways and of bringing more competition to the water supply industry. Following consideration of a number of detailed legal points in respect of the board's borrowing limits and its duties to maintain the waterways in a navigable condition, the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee concluded that the proposal to amend British Waterways' powers was an appropriate use of the powers under the Regulatory Reform Act 2001. I thank the members of that committee for the time they spent scrutinising the proposal and for recommending it unanimously to the House.
	The equivalent committee in another place also concluded unanimously that the proposal was appropriate to be made under the Regulatory Reform Act, following detailed consideration of concerns raised about the adequacy of the consultation process, which were addressed to its satisfaction. The order was subsequently approved. I commend the order to this House.
	Moved, That the draft regulatory reform order laid before the House on 28th April be approved [19th Report from the Regulatory Reform Committee].—(Lord Whitty.)

Baroness Byford: My Lords, before I turn to the order, I wish to record my deep concern and dismay that here we are, two minutes before 11.30 p.m., taking forward a statutory instrument when the new procedures of the House were to encourage us to finish at around 10 p.m.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, my understanding of the agreement of the House was that divisible business would be completed on the appropriate days by 10 p.m. For example, on Thursday evenings the legislative business is completed by 7.30 p.m., but the House often takes an Unstarred Question after then.

Baroness Byford: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for intervening. I infer from the shake of the head that I see from my left from the Clerk that that understanding may not be fully correct. The matter is not an issue that I wish to ram at the two Ministers opposite. It is a practical problem. We sat through and waited patiently while an important statutory instrument was taken through the House—one that should not have been taken at this time of night, a matter conveyed by other noble Lords. I am not getting at the two Ministers opposite, because unfortunately we are where we are.
	However, I want to record that I am dismayed at taking the order and that I hope that those who are looking at reforming the House will bear in mind some of the words that others have said tonight. For example, last night we rose at 6.45 p.m. To do that and then to take two statutory instruments through at nearly 11.30 p.m. is unacceptable—not only to me and our Benches, and the Liberal Benches, but it is unfair to the Government Ministers who have to put the amendment through. I am recording my deep dismay that we are here also on their behalf.
	The Minister was with us yesterday for a long debate on a very important Select Committee report. Today we had a four-hour debate on the countryside, and tomorrow we shall have a six-hour debate on the Water Bill. The usual channels should therefore examine the business and see whether we can avoid this sort of situation in future. As I said, I am not criticising the Minister. I just think that we have a practical problem that the House needs to address.
	I thank the Minister for his comments. I appreciate that the order will enable the board to use private enterprise and private funding, a change that we would certainly support. Sustainable water solutions are also desirable. Nevertheless I have a couple of questions.
	In the introduction to their report, the House of Commons Regulatory Reform Committee rightly said that the order would,
	"give the Board additional powers to abstract, purchase, treat and sell water, and to treat and dispose of effluent".
	That gives rise to two questions in relation to the Water Bill. Is the Minister confident that Clause 29 of the Water Bill, on water resources management schemes, will not be affected by this order? Secondly, will Clause 7, which deals with the rights of abstraction for drainage purposes, not be compromised by the Bill? If he cannot answer that question tonight, I should be happy in the circumstances for him to write to me. Those are obvious questions as the House is currently considering water legislation. We wonder how that legislation might impact on this order.
	On page 5 of the same report, the committee expressed some concerns. The report states:
	"However, we were concerned by the apparent lack of opportunity at the planning stages of the Water Grid project for groups such as English Nature and The Wildlife Trusts to raise environmental concerns. We suggested that had the Department provided certain relevant information to English Nature, The Wildlife Trusts and other interested environmental bodies, and given them the opportunity to comment on that information, their environmental concerns could have been resolved at an early stage. We considered it unfortunate that English Nature's concerns were properly addressed only when a parliamentary committee chose to seek further information about the adequacy of the consultation process".
	The Minister said that the committee expressed a couple of concerns. I thought that I should record the fact that those were major concerns. We on these Benches are concerned about what input English Nature and the Wildlife Trusts might have. Our earlier debate also dealt at great length with the issues facing us as regards environmental legislation.
	Paragraph 8 of the report goes on to state:
	"Both the Department and the Board have undertaken to make the information discussed above available on request, and to seek to address any outstanding environmental concerns that may arise as a consequence of such a request".
	I heard what the Minister said. Having expressed their concerns about the lack of consultation, the committee nevertheless felt that the order should come before the House. I therefore support the order.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I shall not repeat the issues raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, save to say that I noted the concerns of English Nature. I, too, have a query that I want to raise about how the order relates to the Water Bill.
	The noble Lord will know that in our discussions on that Bill he defended the decision to keep British Waterways network of mini reservoirs outwith the Water Bill. By means of this order, the motives which I fully understand and agree with, British Waterways is being moved more into becoming the equivalent of a private sector water company. The Government do not have a good record of taking advice from English Nature, and I understand that they are resisting advice from the Environment Agency.
	Having seen the order and having become more aware of the issues, I am surprised that the Government are not inclined to take the Environment Agency's advice to include all of British waterways water assets within the framework of the Water Bill.

The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, my apologies for attempting to prevent the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, from getting to her feet and delivering that oration.
	I do not expect the Minister to answer the point that I want to make as it is beyond his remit. I apologise because the hour is late, but this is a desperately important issue. Notwithstanding the intervention of the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, life in this House is becoming insufferable, given that increasingly the Government seem not to have understood what they have done in changing the hours.
	I want to register an intense protest from the Back Benches that the way in which the Government are managing the phraseology, "We should normally stop at 10 o'clock" is causing deep concern. The Government should be aware of that and ought to address it.
	Without in any way criticising the noble Baroness for her interpretation, I make the very obvious point that when a public Bill exceeds the 10 o'clock sort of limit and ends up being considered post 1 o'clock in the morning, we have to ask how realistic the reform has actually been. I merely wanted to make your Lordships aware of that issue.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, it is not for me to reply on the issue of the timing. I simply say that it was not the Government, but the House, that agreed those terms on the basis of an all-party report. Clearly, there are a few hiccups, but I am sure that the usual channels will look at concerns expressed by the noble Earl, the noble Baroness and others.
	On the substantive points, the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, raised the issue relating to the Water Bill, as indeed did the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, in a slightly less direct sense. She asked how Clause 28 of the Water Bill, dealing with water resource management, related to this order.
	This provision does not give British Waterways any additional abstraction rights. It already has those, and will continue to do so under the Water Bill. The order provides for what it can do with the water subsequent to abstracting it, which is principally to treat it and sell it in competition with other water suppliers. The water resources management side is not affected, as no additional rights are involved.
	It must similarly be the case in relation to Clause 7. I cannot see why the drainage provisions would alter as well. I am pretty sure that the same answer would apply, but if there is any difference, I shall talk to the noble Baroness before the Water Bill is considered tomorrow. I think that that must be right logically.
	In relation to English Nature, I think that I would accept the view of the Committee in another place. The consultation with English Nature and wildlife interests was not sufficient at an earlier stage. The Environment Agency was heavily involved in the discussion of this proposal at an early stage, but English Nature almost certainly should have been consulted earlier. On the substantive concerns of English Nature, the committee in another place felt that it was adequately reassured. That also appears to be the case with English Nature. Therefore, those concerns have been covered.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, raised a point about the Water Bill, which deals with British Waterways' reservoirs. The only reservoirs exempted from the Water Bill are those that are not connected with the system. They are significant but any part of British Waterways' reservoirs that are connected with the system, and would therefore have an effect on the total availability of water within the system, are covered by the Water Bill. Therefore, in this context and in the context of Clause 28, raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, the abstraction position of British Waterways is covered by the general provisions of the Bill. This order does not alter the existing rights of British Waterways.
	I hope that with that explanation, the House will give a fair wind to the order.

On Question, Motion agreed to.
	House adjourned at eighteen minutes before midnight.